Dominion Strategy Forum

Miscellaneous => Forum Games => Mafia Game Threads => Topic started by: mcmcsalot on September 16, 2013, 11:55:50 am

Title: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on September 16, 2013, 11:55:50 am
Welcome to MXXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia

Mods: Mcmcsalot

This is a normal mafia game with the setup of C9++ See further set-up and deadline information in Post 2.

Players:
1. Eevee
2. Robz888
3. Ashersky
4. Voltaire
5. Yuma
6. Twistedarcher
7. Theorel
8. Sudgy
9. Mail-Mi
10. Chairs
11. Nkirbit
12. Xerses
13. Galzria - Yuan Shao, the Innocent Child

Spectators Tagged: Jimm, Liopoil

Day starts: Day 1 Start: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=9409.msg302666#msg302666


f.ds Mafia Ruleset

The Golden Rule:

Please remember that this is a game and your main objective is to have fun! Be considerate of each other, don’t get personal, and enjoy the game.

Please read The Civility Pledge before signing up for this game. If you have not /pledged there, you cannot play here.

Excessive personal attacks or uncivil behavior may be dealt with by modifiers or modkills.

General Gameplay and Etiquette:

1. You may not quote private Moderator-supplied information (either real or fabricated) of any kind. Paraphrasing (for role claims, etc.) is acceptable.
2. Personal communication outside of the forum postings is NOT ALLOWED unless your Role PM specifically allows it.
3. If you have a role with a Night action, your choices are due to all mods by the posted deadline (generally 48 hours from Night start during the first few Nights; later Nights may have shorter deadlines). If we do not receive your choice via PM by the posted deadline you will forfeit your actions. In case of multiple submissions, the last valid one before the deadline will be used. Generally, one team member may submit the Night Actions for all team members.
4. Roles with Night actions will not be able to submit an action on Night 0 (i.e. during the confirmation stage), unless your Role PM specifically allows it.
5. Any player with a Night action may instead submit a “No Action” PM to let the Mods know that you do not want to perform your expected action that Night phase, unless your Action is compulsory.
6. As a general rule you should aim for one post every 24 hours, minimum, to keep the game moving.


Voting, Deadlines, and Player Death:

1. A simple majority (rounded up) of all living members must agree on one person for a lynch to occur prior to deadline.
2. Once you have reached a simple majority no further unvoting will change someone’s fate. Further votes will also be ignored.
3. Once a player is lynched the game enters twilight until I post a death scene; all players including the one who was lynched may continue to post during twilight.
4. Please submit votes as: Vote: PlayerName. Votes will NOT be counted if they are not bold or do not follow this syntax! Obvious abbreviations or nicknames will be counted so long as they are unambiguous.
5. Please submit vote revocations as either Unvote: PlayerName or Unvote. Unvotes are not necessary before changing votes.
6. You may Vote: No Lynch - a simple majority of these vote types are required to send the game to Night phase without a lynch.
7. Once you are killed (either via lynch or night kill) you may no longer post in the game or in Quicktopics, except for twilight. This means that you do not even get a “Bah” post. The dead in this game are silent, but will be invited to the Spectator Quicktopic.
8. Do not edit or delete posts. We don't want some players having more information than others. If you want to clarify posts, feel free to double post.


Miscellaneous/Mechanics:

1. Bold, Purple text is reserved for the Mod. No invisible/small text is allowed, nor is cryptography.
2. If you have an issue/problem with the game, please PM the Mods privately. Do not post issues/complaints in the game thread.
3. The Mods may make mistakes - please point out any mistakes gently. Mistakes will be corrected where possible, but sometimes mistakes are made that cannot be reversed. These will stand as final to be commiserated over after the game.
4. Please bold all requests to the Mods so that they don’t get missed.
5. Prods of missing players will be issued automatically after 48 hours of no activity or upon request after 24 hours of no activity. A prodded player has 48 hours to respond or risks replacement. A player who has been prodded 3 times is subject to replacement without further notice.
6. Rule violations will be dealt with according to their severity, up to and including a Modkill.
7. If you anticipate being unavailable for more than a 48-hour period please post a notice to that effect in the thread. Treat this game as a commitment. Be considerate – don’t leave us hanging.

Helpful Links:


--Newbie Guide

--Frequently Asked Questions

--Commonly Used Abbreviations


TO CLARIFY, I AM NOT A MODERATOR OF F.DS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS GAME, I AM MODERATING THAT THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED AND HIDDEN ACTIONS ARE COMPLETED PROPERLY.

(Format blatantly stolen[and botched] from Modern Community)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on September 16, 2013, 12:00:37 pm
Welcome to the battle of Hulao Gate!

I have called you all here to settle this dispute with as little conflict as possible. Instead of slaughtering millions while you ravage the land, why don't we just vote on how to split up the land. However there are too many officers here, I think some people that were not invited have shown up. Oh well sticking with the whole non-violent theme lets vote to kill a few people off first and hope it goes well.


There will be No quoting of your PM in any way shape or form, flavor claiming is strictly forbidden as well as anything from your role pm, flavor has been tailored to roles and alignment. This Game will be colorful, however I will specifically state Town or Mafia when dealing with alignments. Vanilla Townies are known as No-Face Officers.

There will be a Flavor Victory as well as a Regular victory but this is hidden and should not distract from the real game whatsoever

for clarification you may role claim like normal, it is just Flavor and all things related to Flavor that must remain hidden
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on September 16, 2013, 12:01:28 pm
/tag at least for now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on September 16, 2013, 12:12:18 pm
yes please!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on September 16, 2013, 12:21:56 pm
/in.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on September 16, 2013, 12:22:10 pm
SO EXCITED. I usually don't care about flavor but OH MY GOODNESS YES.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on September 16, 2013, 12:25:15 pm
Mcmc and I are obsessed with the Dyanasty Warriors video game series, which is based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a famous Chinese novel depicting the fall of the Han Dynasty and War of the Three Kingdoms from about 180 AD to 280 AD.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on September 16, 2013, 12:53:00 pm
Tbfl?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on September 16, 2013, 01:41:21 pm
Tbfl?

I haven't had time to format everything the way I want it yet so some stuff is To Be Finished Later.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on September 16, 2013, 06:55:44 pm
/in
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on September 16, 2013, 07:35:00 pm
/in only if the total number of players doesn't end up being huge, in which case I'll happily /out to make room for others.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 16, 2013, 07:42:20 pm
/in... did I make it in? I am not too late am I?

I desperately need to be in a mafia game. LET ME IN! LET ME IN!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on September 16, 2013, 07:50:49 pm
/in... did I make it in? I am not too late am I?

I desperately need to be in a mafia game. LET ME IN! LET ME IN!
Mcmc, I suggest this rule change: "No players with a username starting with the last two letters of the alphabet can play."
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 16, 2013, 07:54:32 pm
This is a normal mafia game with the setup of C9++ See further set-up and deadline information in Post 2.

Yay! I am been aching for a good old fashioned ++ setup! I know absolutely nothing about the flavor, but hey, I didn't know anything about Doctor Who either.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: liopoil on September 16, 2013, 07:57:38 pm
I can't see where he says that... but if this is true, I am probably in.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on September 16, 2013, 08:23:31 pm
Yay me likey C9++

/in
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Jimmmmm on September 16, 2013, 09:34:30 pm
/tag
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on September 16, 2013, 09:39:51 pm
13 player C++ is awesome.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 16, 2013, 10:27:44 pm

Players:
1. Eevee
2. Robz
3. ashersky
4. voltaire
5. yuma
6. liopoil
7. TA
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Six spots left!

I need this game to fill like now. I know Modern Community is just starting, but for me... the sooner this game starts the sooner I can stop acting erratically and twitching all the time. I need to get back to my normal self.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on September 16, 2013, 10:29:20 pm
I know Modern Community is just starting, but for me... the sooner this game starts the sooner I can stop acting erratically and twitching all the time. I need to get back to my normal self.
This made me lol.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on September 16, 2013, 10:29:47 pm
I really shouldn't... i really shouldn't....
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 16, 2013, 10:31:53 pm
twitch, twitch, shudder
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on September 16, 2013, 11:03:56 pm
Oh man.  C9++ is something I've wanted to try out for a long time... I'm tempted.  I will hold off for now, but if this doesn't fill for a while, I might just have to join.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on September 16, 2013, 11:20:58 pm
Oh man.  C9++ is something I've wanted to try out for a long time... I'm tempted.  I will hold off for now, but if this doesn't fill for a while, I might just have to join.

I've modded it twice.  Great set-up.  Looking forward to playing.

You know I have a plan to break it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on September 16, 2013, 11:55:06 pm
Oh man.  C9++ is something I've wanted to try out for a long time... I'm tempted.  I will hold off for now, but if this doesn't fill for a while, I might just have to join.

I've modded it twice.  Great set-up.  Looking forward to playing.

You know I have a plan to break it.

:D.  The only thing is, I'm also looking forward to trying out the fire and ice game that mail-mi is running next.  I won't be signing up for both that and this, I don't think.. I'll have to decide between the two!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on September 17, 2013, 09:47:14 am
I need this game to fill like now. I know Modern Community is just starting, but for me... the sooner this game starts the sooner I can stop acting erratically and twitching all the time. I need to get back to my normal self.

You just had a baby.  Your definition of "normal" will, shortly, be recalibrated.  :)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on September 17, 2013, 10:24:37 am
\in...Monster Madness is never going to run anyways...so I won't be in 2 games at once.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Jimmmmm on September 17, 2013, 10:24:53 am
\in...Monster Madness is never going to run anyways...so I won't be in 2 games at once.

:(
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on September 17, 2013, 05:03:25 pm
It's actually already running.  This is all just part of the game...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Jorbles on September 18, 2013, 12:53:09 pm
What's a Dynasy Warrior? Anyhow I'm in. I love C9++.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on September 18, 2013, 01:21:39 pm
I really shouldn't... i really shouldn't....
Twitch twitch.... I really shouldn't.... Put me in as tentative.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on September 18, 2013, 06:30:57 pm
Yeah, /in.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: liopoil on September 18, 2013, 06:32:22 pm
/tentative
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 18, 2013, 07:18:07 pm
Players:
1. Eevee
2. Robz888
3. Ashersky
4. Voltaire
5. Yuma
6. Twistedarcher
7. Theorel
8. Jorbles
9. Nkirbit
10.
11.
12.
13.

add in liopoil and mail-mi (we all know that tentative actually means /in) and we are two away! Huzzah!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Jorbles on September 19, 2013, 10:40:31 am
Hey twitchy, Monster Madness only needs one more. If you signed up it would start almost immediately, just saying.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on September 19, 2013, 10:45:21 am
I really shouldn't... i really shouldn't....
Twitch twitch.... I really shouldn't.... Put me in as tentative.
Wait... I'm only in MC right now. /in for realz
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on September 19, 2013, 10:55:38 am
/tag

Intent to hammer.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 19, 2013, 11:20:11 am
Hey twitchy, Monster Madness only needs one more. If you signed up it would start almost immediately, just saying.

Alas, both mail-mi and I signed up as co-mods a long time ago and have information regarding the setup. While I am still willing to help out in that game (mostly because I don't normally play too much RMM) I am a bit bummed as it does look like one I would have probably signed up for to play given the interesting mechanics...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on September 19, 2013, 12:24:33 pm
/out
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: EFHW on September 19, 2013, 01:01:34 pm
/tag
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 23, 2013, 10:52:21 pm
Bump! Monster Mafia is starting up, so peeps let's sign up for this so it can get started once that game ~ hits night1! Yeah!

Three more spots open if you count chairs...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on September 24, 2013, 07:02:16 pm
might as well /in
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on September 24, 2013, 07:50:28 pm
might as well /in

Hurray!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on September 24, 2013, 08:18:43 pm
Grrr. I don't know if I can handle two games at once right now...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Jorbles on September 25, 2013, 12:31:58 pm
Sorry I'm going to have to \out, I'm in too many things right now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on September 25, 2013, 10:03:00 pm
I am no longer in modern family, so /in!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 02, 2013, 02:22:22 pm
Gah, fine, /in for yuma.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: shraeye on October 02, 2013, 02:36:03 pm
hmmm
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 02, 2013, 02:36:54 pm
hmmm

DO IT
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: shraeye on October 02, 2013, 02:40:20 pm
but see, the problem is, I have no time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 02, 2013, 02:45:27 pm
Yeah.  I guess it doesn't make sense to do it, then.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 02, 2013, 06:35:46 pm
Yeah.  I guess it doesn't make sense to do it, then.

Dude, c'mon.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 02, 2013, 07:16:30 pm
Gah, fine, /in for yuma.

so with sudgy in and jorbles out we still need two more?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 02, 2013, 07:30:37 pm
Looks that way.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 02, 2013, 07:32:36 pm
I'm so sorry I think I'll have to /out

(just kidding.)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 03, 2013, 04:19:06 am
okay, I'm in this
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 04, 2013, 05:19:08 pm
Players:
1. Eevee
2. Robz888
3. Ashersky
4. Voltaire
5. Yuma
6. Twistedarcher
7. Theorel
8. sudgy
9. Mail-Mi
10. Chairs
11. Nkirbit
12. xerses
13. (your name here)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 04, 2013, 05:20:23 pm
Players:
1. Eevee
2. Robz888
3. Ashersky
4. Voltaire
5. Yuma
6. Twistedarcher
7. Theorel
8. sudgy
9. Mail-Mi
10. Chairs
11. Nkirbit
12. xerses
13. (your name here)
Are you excited Yuma?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 04, 2013, 05:43:33 pm
Are you excited Yuma?

Someone would have the privilege of making me look like this...

(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/crazy-kid-birthday-gif.gif)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 04, 2013, 05:56:00 pm
I really don't have time for this...

Really, really I don't.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 04, 2013, 06:06:00 pm
Somebody come sign up for this before I do something I regret!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 04, 2013, 06:21:43 pm
MAKE YUMA LOOK LIKE THAT
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 04, 2013, 06:28:57 pm
Sign up, or you risk the wrath of Lu Bu.

You don't want that.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XL7DNILu0Po/TVD9vSC2vkI/AAAAAAAAEFw/tPRVp_ayaF4/s1600/Lu+Bu.jpg)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 04, 2013, 06:30:35 pm
Zhou Yu wants to be your friend, but he needs you to sign up first!

(http://files-cdn.formspring.me/photos/20121007/n507158dec655b.jpg)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 04, 2013, 06:32:35 pm
The last guy who didn't sign up, he dishonored Ma Chao. He died of shame soon after.

(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090902022304/dynastywarriors/images/5/5f/Machao-800.jpg)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 04, 2013, 06:39:18 pm
;D

I'll have a break between classes in... an hour and a half. (8:00 pm forum time). If nobody has filled the last spot by then, auto-/in me.

But please... please don't let me be responsible for making Yuma look like that. I don't want that on my conscience!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 04, 2013, 06:44:28 pm
um um

um

well

argh
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 04, 2013, 06:49:51 pm
see, I'd love to be in this

but I absolutely must stick to my "only one mafia game at a time" rule

...fnargle.  Go ahead Galz.  If you roll scum, I know you will make Si Ma Yi proud.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 04, 2013, 11:10:25 pm
Times well and up.

/regreting this already!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 04, 2013, 11:27:39 pm
(http://s23.postimg.org/dgr9mh3ef/image.jpg?noCache=1380943638)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 05, 2013, 12:04:47 am
Times well and up.

/regreting this already!

You've made Cao Cao so happy! (Seriously, this is his happy face.)

(http://insidepulse.com/wp-content/gallery/dynasty-warriors-7-111010/cao-cao.jpg)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 05, 2013, 02:02:20 am
Ugh I do not have time for this :I  oh well bring it on
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 05, 2013, 08:08:34 am
I actually really love the card game sanguosha, a chinese copy of Bang! which is based on the 3 kingdoms period. So I know some of these people. ZhuGeLiang is my favorite character, though Si Ma Yi is cool too.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 05, 2013, 04:13:34 pm
Signups closed! Pm'd will be sent late Sunday, as well as updates on everything, I am currently in Chicago.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 06, 2013, 11:18:28 pm
Apologies, time got away from me roles are selected and flavor written, pm'd will be sent tomorrow.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 07, 2013, 01:42:31 pm
everyone read the second post of the thread, its is very important.

Pm's have been sent, waiting on confirmation. If you have any questions do not hesitate to ask.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 09, 2013, 11:39:06 am
Welcome all!

It is time to begin deciding which of you will continue on to fight at the Battle of Hulao Gate. This battle must be done quickly and correctly so first we must weed out the spies.

It looks like its going to be difficult to figure things out so I have appointed one of the best generals in all the land to help lead the discussion

Allow me to introduce Commander Yuan Shao, also known as Galzria, the Innocent Child, listen wisely to his advice.

Also I want a decision made by October 19, at 8:00 pm(10 day deadlines will continue)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 09, 2013, 11:43:31 am
Vote Count 1.0:

Not Voting (13): Eevee, Robz888, Ashersky, Voltaire, Yuma, TwistedArcher, Theorel, Sudgy, Mail-mi, Chairs, Nkirbit, Xerses, Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 09, 2013, 11:44:20 am
What's up with us getting really lucky ICs recently?

And, to keep up the tradition from MXXIV, Vote: Galzria.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 09, 2013, 11:46:53 am
Ha, great!

So, I'm alive in three games right now. I generally prioritize games that have been going for longer, so you can expect my activity to be a bit lower until either game goes to night (which shouldn't take long).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 09, 2013, 11:49:57 am
Deadline can be changed/extended if brought to my attention reasonably soon via pm that I chose a dumb time*

*sorry new mod
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 09, 2013, 11:57:21 am
Deadline can be changed/extended if brought to my attention reasonably soon via pm that I chose a dumb time*

*sorry new mod

My advice, choose a time that works for you, not us.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 12:32:26 pm
Oh hey, this opened! I thought I had notifications on, I didn't.

C9++ can have ICs? I need to go read that again!

Also a reminder that flavor claims are illegal here!!! Please don't derp them!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 09, 2013, 12:38:32 pm
This is going to be the first game in which I actually like the flavor. I love DYnasty Warriors, yeah!

Yuan Shao, my liege, you must lead us to victory!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 09, 2013, 12:46:26 pm
This is going to be the first game in which I actually like the flavor. I love DYnasty Warriors, yeah!

Yuan Shao, my liege, you must lead us to victory!

And the first game you like the flavor, you can't claim it!

So, obviously, because of that, Vote: Robz888.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 09, 2013, 12:50:06 pm
Happy to be in a game, vote: Yuma?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 09, 2013, 01:01:15 pm
So, I'm in 2 games at once.  I don't usually let that happen, what am I doing?

Okay, overlap between games: Voltaire, Eevee, ashersky, chairs.  Those are the ones I'll have to keep straight.

And, I think we've pretty well covered any C9++ theory.  Good straight-forward set-up.  I like it.

So, we should skip RVS and go straight to RVS: vote: Robz.  He likes playing scum, and his brother is moderating...we can all tell where that's going.

(to clarify that's a reference to Buffy mafia, where Robz claimed there was a "Robz Voting Stage".  I'm not sure that's still a thing...but it should be.  Robz is always a good target for votes.)

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 09, 2013, 01:02:57 pm
Voltgloss: Fate's a bitch.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 09, 2013, 01:04:29 pm
This is going to be the first game in which I actually like the flavor. I love DYnasty Warriors, yeah!

Yuan Shao, my liege, you must lead us to victory!

Seriously? 30+ games into regular Mafia, and however many more RMM/BM/Whatever, and this is the FIRST game that you're really interested in flavor? Yikes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 04:19:25 pm
Masons should claim immediately.  Could know lots of rolls here with IC in the mix.

And, I think we've pretty well covered any C9++ theory.  Good straight-forward set-up.  I like it.

If by "pretty well covered" you mean terribly and not at all.  This is exactly the type of misdirection I would use as scum in this setup.  I've modded it twice.  Both times town won handily with great scum hunting, especially from newbie ICs.  They did not figure out the setup via theory, as theo would have you think.

vote: theorel. Not RVS.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 09, 2013, 04:36:47 pm
Ash, I believe you've only witnessed the theory discussions about this setup posted as a mod but never actually played in a C9++ game. What do you think of this setup? What kind of mistakes have we made analyzing it earlier?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 04:38:54 pm
Nooooooooooooo! Not the ash I agree with! *drowns in a sea of wine*

vote: Xerses because I always vote the person I haven't played with before.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 09, 2013, 04:59:21 pm
Hey. Agree that I would like to hear Ash's thoughts on C9++, and the discussion may be beneficial for those of us who have never played it, but ultimately it's usually not solvable until much later, so we shouldn't beat it o death currently.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 05:07:29 pm
Ash, I believe you've only witnessed the theory discussions about this setup posted as a mod but never actually played in a C9++ game. What do you think of this setup? What kind of mistakes have we made analyzing it earlier?

I'm glad you asked.

Hey. Agree that I would like to hear Ash's thoughts on C9++, and the discussion may be beneficial for those of us who have never played it, but ultimately it's usually not solvable until much later, so we shouldn't beat it o death currently.

Incorrect, scum #2.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 05:14:32 pm
Here's what I found to be the biggest "failing" of town in these games.  (I mean, they won, so they didn't really "fail.")

Town PRs did NOT take into account how much extra information that actually gave them.

So, do that.

Remember, the set-up isn't broken because of the provision for scum to have a Roleblocker, Godfather, or Both.  SK could also choose Godfather.

By knowing PRs, we know if they have these roles or not, though, and we can plan for them.

For instance, SCUM HAVE A ROLEBLOCKER IN THIS GAME.  I know this for a fact, 100%.  So does at least one other member of the town.  That's the sort of thing that town didn't do early in the other games -- point things like this out.

Also fact:  There is a 2/5 chance there is an SK in the game.
Another fact:  There is a 3/5 chance there is a Godfather in the game.

If there are masons, there is 100% chance of a godfather and 1/3 chance of SK.  But I need mason claims to prove that.

See?  Way more to this than "we don't have to talk about it Theorel" says or "don't beat it to death TA" thinks.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 09, 2013, 05:50:21 pm
Where are you getting 2/5 and 3/5 from, ash?  I haven't done theater, and I probably won't, but don't think those are correct numbers.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 05:54:06 pm
ash, I don't see how you can know that scum has a roleblocker without claiming you're a mason. Having an IC means either M or MMM but that's all we know. Some of us will know more, but those would only be those of us with PRs. If it's MMM at most it can be TTTT which does mean scum has to have a roleblocker. Are you claiming you're a mason?

I think your point was to make someone point this out, which means you're fishing. For what, I do not know. What that means for your alignment, well, I don't know.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 06:06:05 pm
ash, I don't see how you can know that scum has a roleblocker without claiming you're a mason. Having an IC means either M or MMM but that's all we know. Some of us will know more, but those would only be those of us with PRs. If it's MMM at most it can be TTTT which does mean scum has to have a roleblocker. Are you claiming you're a mason?

I think your point was to make someone point this out, which means you're fishing. For what, I do not know. What that means for your alignment, well, I don't know.

Does no one read what I write?

There are 7 letters.  At most, there are at most 4 Ts in this game.  Let me break the math down for you all:

TTTT = 2 Goons + Roleblocker
TTT = 2 Goons + Roleblocker, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
TT = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather
T = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
0 Ts = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather

5/5 chances of a Roleblocker.  5/5 = 100%.
2/5 chances of a Serial Killer.  That's because there are 5 possible scum setups, and 2 of them list Serial Killer.  Where there are 2 of something in 5 total, that's 2/5.
3/5 chances of a Godfather.  Again, 5 possible setups, 3 list Godfather.

If Masons are in the game, we have, at most, 2 Ts.

TT = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather
T = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
0 Ts = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather

So 1/3 SK and 100% for both RB and GF.




That is how simple math works.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 06:08:04 pm
Does no one read what I write?

There are 7 letters.  At most, there are at most 4 Ts in this game.  Let me break the math down for you all:

Ash, no need to get snippy. The bold is where I don't follow you. How do you know there are at most 4 Ts? Why can't there be 6 Ts, an M, and that's it (for example)?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 09, 2013, 06:10:07 pm
Vote Count 1.1:

Robz888 (2): Sudgy, Theorel
Yuma (1): mail-mi
Theorel (1): Ashersky
XerxesPraelor (1): Voltaire
 
Not Voting (8): Eevee, Robz888, Yuma, TwistedArcher, Chairs, Nkirbit, Xerses, Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 09, 2013, 06:11:50 pm
ash, I don't see how you can know that scum has a roleblocker without claiming you're a mason. Having an IC means either M or MMM but that's all we know. Some of us will know more, but those would only be those of us with PRs. If it's MMM at most it can be TTTT which does mean scum has to have a roleblocker. Are you claiming you're a mason?

I think your point was to make someone point this out, which means you're fishing. For what, I do not know. What that means for your alignment, well, I don't know.

Does no one read what I write?

There are 7 letters.  At most, there are at most 4 Ts in this game.  Let me break the math down for you all:

TTTT = 2 Goons + Roleblocker
TTT = 2 Goons + Roleblocker, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
TT = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather
T = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
0 Ts = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather

5/5 chances of a Roleblocker.  5/5 = 100%.
2/5 chances of a Serial Killer.  That's because there are 5 possible scum setups, and 2 of them list Serial Killer.  Where there are 2 of something in 5 total, that's 2/5.
3/5 chances of a Godfather.  Again, 5 possible setups, 3 list Godfather.

If Masons are in the game, we have, at most, 2 Ts.

TT = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather
T = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
0 Ts = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather

So 1/3 SK and 100% for both RB and GF.




That is how simple math works.

man, that's so not how simple math works.  P(0T) =/= P(1T) and so on.  If you flip a coin 100 times, you're much much more likely to see 50 heads than you are to see 10 heads, for example.

The odds are calculable, but not this simple.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 06:15:44 pm
Town PRs did NOT take into account how much extra information that actually gave them.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 06:16:52 pm
man, that's so not how simple math works.  P(0T) =/= P(1T) and so on.  If you flip a coin 100 times, you're much much more likely to see 50 heads than you are to see 10 heads, for example.

The odds are calculable, but not this simple.

Really?  If you know that there are 5 possible outcomes, and 3 of the 5 possible outcomes contain X, then it is incorrect to say you have a 3/5 chance of X?  Really?  How did I finish college?  I'm such a fucking idiot.  Shoot me in the fucking head.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 09, 2013, 06:17:49 pm
man, that's so not how simple math works.  P(0T) =/= P(1T) and so on.  If you flip a coin 100 times, you're much much more likely to see 50 heads than you are to see 10 heads, for example.

The odds are calculable, but not this simple.

Really?  If you know that there are 5 possible outcomes, and 3 of the 5 possible outcomes contain X, then it is incorrect to say you have a 3/5 chance of X?  Really?  How did I finish college?  I'm such a fucking idiot.  Shoot me in the fucking head.

Because it's not a uniform distribution -- all 5 possible outcomes are not equally likely
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 09, 2013, 06:18:45 pm
So...you're claiming a TT PR? How is this a good idea?

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 06:18:54 pm
We are talking past each other, and it appears to be intentional on your part.

All of us know that the setup includes either M or MMM due to the presence of an IC.

Those of us who are PRs know additional information. Stating this information in-thread is akin to claiming to be a PR ie bad.

You have claimed you know there is at most TTTT. The only way I can see this making sense is if you are claiming to be a Mason, based on looking at the C9++ setup information (something I find reasonable, given your statement you think masons should claim and at least one other person knows as much about the setup as you do).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 09, 2013, 06:20:04 pm
man, that's so not how simple math works.  P(0T) =/= P(1T) and so on.  If you flip a coin 100 times, you're much much more likely to see 50 heads than you are to see 10 heads, for example.

The odds are calculable, but not this simple.

Really?  If you know that there are 5 possible outcomes, and 3 of the 5 possible outcomes contain X, then it is incorrect to say you have a 3/5 chance of X?  Really?  How did I finish college?  I'm such a fucking idiot.  Shoot me in the fucking head.

There are two possible outcomes:  winning the lottery or not winning the lottery.  But I don't have a 1/2 chance of winning the lottery, do I?

If you want to claim PR, do it, Ash.  I'm not going to sit here and guess whether you're claiming or not.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 06:21:10 pm
Really?  If you know that there are 5 possible outcomes, and 3 of the 5 possible outcomes contain X, then it is incorrect to say you have a 3/5 chance of X?  Really?  How did I finish college?  I'm such a fucking idiot.  Shoot me in the fucking head.

I do not find it personally enjoyable to play a game where individuals take this sort of attitude to others. I would pretty-please ask that you try to reason through your argument here with me and others.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 09, 2013, 06:24:46 pm
Really?  If you know that there are 5 possible outcomes, and 3 of the 5 possible outcomes contain X, then it is incorrect to say you have a 3/5 chance of X?  Really?  How did I finish college?  I'm such a fucking idiot.  Shoot me in the fucking head.

I do not find it personally enjoyable to play a game where individuals take this sort of attitude to others. I would pretty-please ask that you try to reason through your argument here with me and others.

This is Ash being reasonable. :P

He's explaining exactly as much as he intends to. He knows his previous meta's, and he knows that I know them. He's equally as capable of playing to them as town or scum. So read not the attitude, or the abrasive borderline obnoxious posts, but instead focus on both what he is saying (his points) and what he's not saying.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 06:26:45 pm
So read not the attitude, or the abrasive borderline obnoxious posts, but instead focus on both what he is saying (his points) and what he's not saying.

When I do that, I come away with two things:

1. He is reminding PRs that they know more about the setup than anyone else, and should keep it in the back of their mind (something I approve of)
2. He is claiming Mason.

I assume if 2 is incorrect ash should contradict me, because I don't see any scenario where it's good for me to incorrectly think ash is a mason.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 09, 2013, 06:27:19 pm
man, that's so not how simple math works.  P(0T) =/= P(1T) and so on.  If you flip a coin 100 times, you're much much more likely to see 50 heads than you are to see 10 heads, for example.

The odds are calculable, but not this simple.

Really?  If you know that there are 5 possible outcomes, and 3 of the 5 possible outcomes contain X, then it is incorrect to say you have a 3/5 chance of X?  Really?  How did I finish college?  I'm such a fucking idiot.  Shoot me in the fucking head.

There are two possible outcomes:  winning the lottery or not winning the lottery.  But I don't have a 1/2 chance of winning the lottery, do I?

If you want to claim PR, do it, Ash.  I'm not going to sit here and guess whether you're claiming or not.

Maybe he wants to, maybe he doesn't. I don't see how telling him to just claim already helps you, him, me or town. If he wanted to come straight out and say something, he would have. He's said exactly what he intended to say. No more, no less.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 09, 2013, 06:34:12 pm
What I do see is Ash breadcrumbing that he has a PR, which I do find scummy.  He's implying that he has more information about the number of roles that are in the game than others do.  Which means he's either a PR or scum, right?

PRs want to stay hidden though.. why would a PR breadcrumb that he's a PR in this set-up?   There are no PRs that want to be shot at night.  So I see it as something scum would want to do, and something that a town PR wouldn't want to do.

Vote: Ashersky

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 06:38:06 pm
There are 2 doctors or 3 doctors, in this game.  I am the 1-Shot kind.

Ergo, we are guaranteed to have:

MDDXXXX, MMMDDXX, MDDDDXX

Those are the only possible set-ups in this game, currently, that we are playing.  I would rather the other DOCTOR(s) not claim.

I want Masons to claim, so we can narrow the possibilities further.

I'd also love for a Cop to claim, so we can play Follow-the-Cop.  2 Doctors means 1 guaranteed investigation (Godfather excluded).  Scum can roleblock me to keep my protection from working, but the other guaranteed doctor in the set-up protects the claimed Cop while he makes ICs or catches scum (again, Godfather excluded).

We can narrow our lynch/investigation pool by claiming.  We can also figure out the likelihood of a Godfather or SK with claiming.

If we have a full-cop, I would even go so far as to say no lynch today so we don't accidentally run up our full doctor and force a claim, and also to not let scum fakeclaim doctor.

If we have a 1-shot cop, he should definitely claim, as we can guarantee his 1-shot works on N1 with me and the other doctor.  If it's just a 1-shot cop, it's okay to lynch on D1, since even forcing the other doc to claim on D1 means they can't kill the cop on N1 with two docs alive on N1.


PPE -- Galz, at least, is the voice of reason.  I almost deleted this whole thing and stuck to my plan, but forget this.  I want to win, that's all I want, and I really DO NOT CARE if you like me or not.  Follow my words, not my personality.  I am right in this.

I lean theorel, Voltaire, nkirbit as scum, based on ridiculous statements, clear fear at what I'm laying out for town, and focusing on the unimportant bits and trying to hide everything under emotional complaints.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 09, 2013, 06:41:27 pm
I think a cop should absolutely not claim.  What?  Doesn't scum just roleblock the cop and not worry about the doctors who are probably focused on the cop?

The cop claiming seems very very bad, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 09, 2013, 06:43:46 pm
Couldn't scum just roleblock the cop rather than the doctor?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 09, 2013, 06:45:51 pm
Yeah, under no circumstances should the cop claim. If Ash is correct, we do have a roleblocker, and the roleblocker would just block any claimed cop.

If the roleblocker flips, then we can try follow-the-cop. But until then, absolutely no way should a cop claim.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 07:03:22 pm
I lean theorel, Voltaire, nkirbit as scum, based on ridiculous statements, clear fear at what I'm laying out for town, and focusing on the unimportant bits and trying to hide everything under emotional complaints.

I haven't read ash's post yet, but this is exactly what I was expecting. Anyone who doesn't get what ash is doing, or responds with skepticism, is automatically scum in his mind. I debated posting my reply in the first place because I knew only one reaction was guaranteed: ash would find me scummy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 09, 2013, 07:05:32 pm
I think a cop should absolutely not claim.  What?  Doesn't scum just roleblock the cop and not worry about the doctors who are probably focused on the cop?

The cop claiming seems very very bad, in my opinion.
Yeah, his shot would just be blocked and used up.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 09, 2013, 07:07:35 pm
I lean theorel, Voltaire, nkirbit as scum, based on ridiculous statements, clear fear at what I'm laying out for town, and focusing on the unimportant bits and trying to hide everything under emotional complaints.

I haven't read ash's post yet, but this is exactly what I was expecting. Anyone who doesn't get what ash is doing, or responds with skepticism, is automatically scum in his mind. I debated posting my reply in the first place because I knew only one reaction was guaranteed: ash would find me scummy.

Vote: Voltaire

This kinda implies that you knew Ash was town when you were posting your response. I'm getting that you are worried that "Ash is a town member who will find me scummy", rather than "Ash is a scum member who will paint me as scummy".
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 07:09:17 pm
@TA - no, it's me thinking "if ash is town, we're just going to waste a bunch of time with ask pursuing me, and me likely OMGUSing ash because nothing about what he's doing is pro-town". If ash is scum, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 07:13:39 pm
I ran through ash's claim on my own with the setup. If ash is telling the truth:

MDDXXXX - RB, ???
MDDDDXX - RB, ???
MMMDDXX - RB, ???
MMMDDDD - RB, Goon, Godfather

I do not see why the fourth is impossible as ash states. If I am missing something, please point it out to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 07:17:20 pm
Other reason I was hesitant to post: the more we talk about this, the more likely one of us derps whether or not we're a PR, and if we are, which one. Hence my comment that ash was fishing, and to what end I could not tell.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 09, 2013, 07:25:40 pm
I think, that with each claim, we discuss the new options, then move on.  After we clear up what Voltaire just said, lets move on to more productive things (like scumhunting).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 09, 2013, 07:26:14 pm
I am sooooooo happy! Mafia!!!!

Did you guys miss me?

So, I think normally I would be getting up in ash's face and arguing with him.... but honestly I am just too happy to do something like this. And, you know what, I am kinda intrigued by this whole idea.... so let's roll with it.

I mean I still want to look over the math and everything. I haven't looked over the setup (I mean I know it is C9++, but I need to familiarize myself with it... apparently mafiascum is also blocked at my work... lame.)


So for those of you who haven't played with me or haven't played with me recently, let me remind you.

1. I work a weird 7 on/7 off schedule, meaning I work 7 days in a row and then have 7 days off. This means my availability will vary from week to week.
2. My work blocks forums such as this.
3. I recently had a newborn come into my life... so I won't be nearly as active as I have in the past (I'll still be active, but I don't expect myself to be the leader that I was in previous games just because of the new nature of home life.)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 09, 2013, 07:34:36 pm
(http://cdn.meme.li/i/p0ddr.jpg)

Seriously, I have no idea what's going on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 07:35:42 pm
I concede I was wrong about follow-the-cop.  Don't claim.  No idea why I didn't think Cop would just be roleblocked.

Once the scum roleblocker is dead, then yes, follow-the-cop.

We have M and at least DD confirmed.

MDDXXXX
MDDDDXX
MMMDDXX
MMMDDDD

Voltaire picked up one I missed as far as TOWN roles go, but I was focused on SCUM roles.  And the existence of MMMDDDD does not change anything I said about 5 possible scum setups.

Voltaire focusing on town roles instead of scum roles reads as scum looking for the town power roles.

vote: Voltaire
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 09, 2013, 07:36:44 pm
I will say that I am not so sure about the Masons claiming though...

As a mason previously in this setup, with theorel, I feel that we were a major boon to the town by staying silent. We both knew each other were our partners and put each other toward the bottom of our reads (but not necessarily at the very bottom) so that if one of us died we would be able to show that we were partners.

In the end us not revealing our PR until later in the game helped with PoE. I believe that because we lynched scum (and that wagon had neither theorel or I on it) we were able to determine that the off wagon must have scum out of like 3 other players... and low and behold there was 2 scum there and we were able to handily win the game (Galz helping out as a cop I believe also helped matters immensely) but basically, morale of the story is that masons are more powerful when they remain secret for a period of time.

It is the same with ICs.

ICs that can choose when they become public are much more powerful to town that beginning of day1 revealed ICs... why? Because town is then able to analyze any wagons that might have built up on someone that was confirmed to be town while that player is still alive. Yes, there is the risk of that player dying in the night (ala Eevee in MVIII) but I think in the case of masons that risk is worth it as their mason partner can argue that they were partners very easily...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 07:37:42 pm
Other reason I was hesitant to post: the more we talk about this, the more likely one of us derps whether or not we're a PR, and if we are, which one. Hence my comment that ash was fishing, and to what end I could not tell.

There's no "derping" of PRs.  You claim, breadcrumb, or hide.  That it.

I fully support any PR wanting to claim for solving the set-up.  Plus, we can get fakeclaims figured out that way.  Early claiming almost forces scum to go with VT, since too many PR claims and they're caught.

Again, scummy behavior from Voltaire.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 07:38:56 pm
Right now, for every member of town that is NOT Galzria, the lynch pool is 11 people.

If masons claim, for every member of town that is NOT Galzria or Masons, the lynch pool is 9 people.

If you believe me, and another doctor, the lynch pool is 7.

That's pretty darn good POE to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 07:39:24 pm
Plus, with 7 lynchables, if we have any Vs, we can vig some of those seven, lynch some seven, and win.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 07:41:09 pm
I actually think that there's a chance fullclaiming could be right, for the reason ash states. Yuma (and IC Galz I guess) what do you think about your preference theoretical masons stay quiet versus full-claiming D1 potentially catching scum off-guard?

and there's the vote on me! This sure is a fun day one. Ash, you are voting me because you have how town would react and how scum would react wrong. Or they overlap, and you're not accounting for that. Do you remember when Galz was one of your scummy reactions to your plan in HP, and it turns out he was a town PR? I see no evidence that player's reactions to your plans actually gives any indication of their alignment.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 07:45:07 pm
I actually think that there's a chance fullclaiming could be right, for the reason ash states. Yuma (and IC Galz I guess) what do you think about your preference theoretical masons stay quiet versus full-claiming D1 potentially catching scum off-guard?

and there's the vote on me! This sure is a fun day one. Ash, you are voting me because you have how town would react and how scum would react wrong. Or they overlap, and you're not accounting for that. Do you remember when Galz was one of your scummy reactions to your plan in HP, and it turns out he was a town PR? I see no evidence that player's reactions to your plans actually gives any indication of their alignment.

Says scrambling scum.  If you are a town PR, feel free to claim and clear yourself, like Galz did in HP.  Worked there, didn't it?

And this isn't a plan.  This is fact.  This is a semi-open set-up that can be solved.  No crazy plans here.  Just laying out the information as it is.

The presence of a 1-Shot Doctor narrows the field a lot.  So does Masons, 1-Shot Cop, and 1-Shot Doc.  Those all require >1 of a letter to exist.  That really helps narrowing down the stuff.

We've already pinned scum's team down a bit.  Knowing the likelihood of a SK, or if there is absolutely a Godfather, would be fantastic for Town D1.

Anyone who fights against that notion is at best anti-town and at worst scum.  That's why I'm voting for you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 07:46:04 pm
ash...I am agreeing with you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 09, 2013, 07:47:26 pm
(http://cdn.meme.li/i/p0ddr.jpg)

Seriously, I have no idea what's going on.

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=C9%2B%2B
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 09, 2013, 07:48:58 pm
The reason I'm not claiming right away is because out of an abundance of caution I want to give someone the opportunity to make a case against it, if there is one to be made, in case ash is scum and leading us down a terrible rabbit hole.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 09, 2013, 08:45:10 pm
Ash (and anybody else interested in looking this up):

What games previously used this setup?
What were the outcomes of those games?
What did town do in the games they won in relation to various claiming.

Ashersky in particular: You said town dominated those games, but did not mass-claim early. Why would town want to do something different here? Wouldn't it be SCUM that want to shake things up?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 09, 2013, 09:00:50 pm
Ash (and anybody else interested in looking this up):

What games previously used this setup?
What were the outcomes of those games?
What did town do in the games they won in relation to various claiming.

C9++ games

MXVII http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5395.0 Town win... Hit scum day1. No real claiming until Galz claimed 1-shot cop I believe, but at that point we were very close to winning
MXXIV http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7546.0 Town win... Hit scum day1. Claiming day2 I believe... ended up helping town pretty much, but again I think town would have won the game based off interactions more than anything else.

was this game MIV http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=2774.0 a C9++? It looks very similar, but I don't think volt every specifically said it was ... mafia win ... I know nothing about this game, wasn't in it, nor did i watch it.

JK9++ games (similar concept)

MXII http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4680.0 Mafia win  .... debacle with claiming at about day3. Really bad claims all around and scum was able to completely manipulate everything to get the win.

I believe those are the only games that used this setup...

I do see where ash is coming from with his claim. But really only his claim. A 1-shot Doc claim does help, because it isn't a very super powerful role, but it does clarify a lot in terms of the setup and helps us pinpoint it w/o giving scum too much info and w/o making himself to be an obvious target for a night kill. It is also really bad for mafia to fake claim, because if we get to a point where no one claims Doc, then he is obvscum (further down the road when mass claim becomes a thing)... right now I don't think we should have more claims... maybe masons. I am torn on that one. Anything else might help mafia pinpoint a cop if we have one.

So at this point I am treating ash as town. I don't see mafia making that claim and I think I like it, but I don't want anyone else to claim at this point... at least not until we are able to eliminate the mafia roleblocker.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 09, 2013, 10:59:33 pm
galz, yuma answered the "which games" question.

I modded both of those C9++ games.  The reason town won handily in both: incredibly good play by the IC and hitting scum D1.

In Buffy, scum just didn't do great.  They lurked, didn't hammer town when they could have, and had to sub in someone on D2 who promptly got lynched.

In Samurai and Ninja, again, great IC work and shoddy scum play.


Why do we want to claim?  I think it is actually the easiest way to win.  You and I agree -- on D1, POE is way better than "scum hunting" because we have so little to go on.  I'm whittling down the POE options quickly.

The other 1-shots I mentions, plus masons, do that as well.  Let's trap 3 scum in a little pool and just kill all the fish.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 10, 2013, 12:13:17 am
galz, yuma answered the "which games" question.

I modded both of those C9++ games.  The reason town won handily in both: incredibly good play by the IC and hitting scum D1.

In Buffy, scum just didn't do great.  They lurked, didn't hammer town when they could have, and had to sub in someone on D2 who promptly got lynched.

In Samurai and Ninja, again, great IC work and shoddy scum play.


Why do we want to claim?  I think it is actually the easiest way to win.  You and I agree -- on D1, POE is way better than "scum hunting" because we have so little to go on.  I'm whittling down the POE options quickly.

The other 1-shots I mentions, plus masons, do that as well.  Let's trap 3 scum in a little pool and just kill all the fish.

If it's so easily solvable, why do you think it's still such a popular setup on mafiascum?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 10, 2013, 12:28:25 am
Yeah, I think C9++ is as broken as the Hider Plan.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 12:46:02 am
The reason I'm not claiming right away is because out of an abundance of caution I want to give someone the opportunity to make a case against it, if there is one to be made, in case ash is scum and leading us down a terrible rabbit hole.

...This almost looks like a claim.

NO CLAIMING, NO MENTIONING MAYBE CLAIMING, ETC.  I can see telling others to claim (for good reasons, at least), but not claiming without good reason.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 10, 2013, 12:48:46 am
Unreasonably strong convictions ash is town!ash. He may know how to fake it by now in theory, but I've never seen him do that in action.

I actually don't think massclaim in this setup is the wildest thing ever, but it did go horribly wrong in Mafia XII, and I really don't like this move toward constant claiming of everything immediately. Let's just play the game!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 01:13:42 am
galz, yuma answered the "which games" question.

I modded both of those C9++ games.  The reason town won handily in both: incredibly good play by the IC and hitting scum D1.

In Buffy, scum just didn't do great.  They lurked, didn't hammer town when they could have, and had to sub in someone on D2 who promptly got lynched.

In Samurai and Ninja, again, great IC work and shoddy scum play.


Why do we want to claim?  I think it is actually the easiest way to win.  You and I agree -- on D1, POE is way better than "scum hunting" because we have so little to go on.  I'm whittling down the POE options quickly.

The other 1-shots I mentions, plus masons, do that as well.  Let's trap 3 scum in a little pool and just kill all the fish.

If it's so easily solvable, why do you think it's still such a popular setup on mafiascum?

1)  I don't think it is easily solvable.
2)  I have no knowledge of mafiascum other than the wiki for roles/setups/etc.

I think that, with the way that roles are dependent on number of rolls, certain roles help you "solve" the set-up faster.

My 1-Shot Doc is the PERFECT example.  It takes 2 Ds or 4Ds to have one.  It can easily be counterclaimed (a second 1-Shot Doc is impossible, no other real doc, etc.).  That's why 1-Shot Cop/RB are the same.  That's why Masons with IC is the same.

You still have to believe the claims, you still have to root out the liars amongst the claimants and VTs.  It isn't solved.  But man, it's way easier to know where to look.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 10, 2013, 04:40:43 am
Ash is so quick to deal out scum reads himself, I'm surprised no one is calling him out for trying to out the cop.

Well, yuma's point about this specific claim making way more sense from town makes me lean towards believing ash anyways.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 05:17:40 am
Actually no, I was right.  1-shot cop should claim.  Because then we have a guaranteed real cop, but 1-shot has to get roleblocked, so it is like blocking the blocker to ensure the real cop isn't.

I am brilliant.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 06:06:34 am
Actually no, I was right.  1-shot cop should claim.  Because then we have a guaranteed real cop, but 1-shot has to get roleblocked, so it is like blocking the blocker to ensure the real cop isn't.

I am brilliant.

In case this phone post wasn't clear:

1) 1-Shot Cop claims
2) 1-Shot Doctor protects him on N1
3) Mafia must roleblock me and kill him
4) But then the Full Cop gets an investigation in
5) And the Full Doc gets a protection in...of me?  Or the 1-Shot Cop?  Or the IC.  Ah, great WIFOM there.
6) So then, Mafia must roleblock 1-Shot Cop and kill me, or someone else
7) Still, Full Cop gets an investigation

D2, 1-Shot Cop probably gets to claim no result, because mafia would have to roleblock him to be safe.  I'm probably dead, but maybe not, since I'm VT after using my shot for this place.  But so is the 1-Shot Cop.  And then, you get IC + 2 VTs out of the lynch pool, and the IC survives to D2.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 10, 2013, 06:52:50 am
In any case, we really shouldn't be lynching anyone at this stage. We can wait until the cops get their info and then decide to do something. Vote: No Lynch
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:57:33 am
Actually no, I was right.  1-shot cop should claim.  Because then we have a guaranteed real cop, but 1-shot has to get roleblocked, so it is like blocking the blocker to ensure the real cop isn't.

I am brilliant.

I would agree with this, but I think you must admit that the chances of having a 1-shot cop and a cop are much smaller... because as you say we either have MDD or MMMDD (here assuming you are telling the truth and we have a 1-shot doc and a doc) To have a 1-shot cop and a regular cop we would need to have CCC or CCCCC.

So yes we could have MDDCCCX. But we can't have MMMDDCCC or MMMDDCCCCC... too many letters. And we can't have MDDCCCCC, again too many letters.

if we have 2 docs and a 1-shot doc then we would have DDDD, making it impossible to have a 1-shot cop and a cop as DDDDMCCC is too many letters

this of course is the slight problem with claiming, as we have clued mafia into the fact that it is much less likely that we have the above, especially as they know their own powers, etc, etc...


Oh... I think I see the fallacy of your argument here ash... a 1-shot cop actually tells us very little, at least compared to a 1-shot doc. From the wiki:

"Cop Roles
C = 1-Shot Cop
CC = Cop
CCC = Cop, 1-Shot Cop
CCCC = 2 Cops
CCCCC = 2 Cops, 1-Shot Cop
CCCCCC = 3 Cops
Cops are guaranteed to be sane."

C= 1-shot cop. So just because we have a 1-shot cop doesn't mean anything in regard to a regular cop. It isn't like doctor which works like:

"Doctor Roles
D = Doctor
DD = Doctor + 1-Shot Doctor
DDD = 2 Doctors
DDDD = 2 Doctors + 1-Shot Doctor
DDDDD = 3 Doctors"

So again, no cop claiming until the roleblocker is dead yo!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 07:59:43 am
Good catch yuma.  I thought Doc and Cop rolls were the same.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 08:03:27 am
In any case, we really shouldn't be lynching anyone at this stage. We can wait until the cops get their info and then decide to do something. Vote: No Lynch

Hi Xerses! Welcome to the game, hope you enjoy it.

This idea is often brought up by newer players and is actually a pretty good idea at first glance. However, many, many games have established that it is a bad idea. For one, we don't know that we have any cops. Second, lynches is how town gets information. Lynching forces mafia into making decisions and being on or off a lynch wagon, thus having a lynch is good. Even at its worst it exchanges a town player for more infomation and the hope of lynching mafia day2. Remember town's purpose here isn't for all of us to survive to the end, it is to kill off the mafia before they overrun us.

A no lynch is bad because look at where it puts us tomorrow.

There are 13 alive right now. If we no lynch and if there isn't a vig or SK (just for simplification purposes) there will be 12 alive right now (but one less will be town, because mafia will kill a townie during the night). So tomorrow we will be back where we are today, with no information gained from a lynch and a dead townie... Maybe we should no lynch again? Now we are in the same spot with 11 alive and 2 dead townies. Not good.

Yes, if we have a cop, it might be worth it, but we don't know if we have a cop or not. There is the risk we might lynch a PR. That is a risk, generally we allow people to claim before we lynch them and can weight their claims accordingly... We have been dumb in the past and lynched PRs.... but I think we are getting better.

And last of all, we have lynched mafia day1. Not super often, but often enough and when it happens it puts town in a huge advantage. An advantage that is worth the potential risk of losing a townie or even a PR day1 I think...

So, ultimately no lynch isn't great for town. Lynching is almost always good for town, it is how we win the game.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 08:03:49 am
Good catch yuma.  I thought Doc and Cop rolls were the same.

Look at us agreeing and stuff!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 10, 2013, 08:15:48 am
Good catch yuma.  I thought Doc and Cop rolls were the same.

Look at us agreeing and stuff!
One of you must be scum!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 10, 2013, 09:07:33 am
@ash: Annnd...I'm 90% sure I've had significant parts of that conversation before.  PRs have more information about the set-up, (yep covered that before).  Scum knows more about the set-up than us (yep done that one too)

I've also stated before that claims requiring 2 non-T rolls are stronger than claims requiring 1 non-T roll.  I've also discussed probability of SK and how that's impacted by known rolls.

I disagree with your views on claiming generally.  I think that a 1-shot doc claim is actually pretty good here, though.  It does bring up the question of how likely it is to be true.  In order for it to be false, you have to have been willing as scum to claim a counter-claimable role.  One that isn't worth outing to scum.  After further consideration, I don't think it's substantially stronger in this case from requiring a doc (converse to what I said last-time I played this set-up), because that requires a mass-claim to counter, one which we are reluctant to do if there's a doctor out there...because outing the doc is clearly bad.  But either a counter-claim or a mass-claim could prove it false...and that makes me essentially believe you.

So, I think it's fair to assume we have at least 3 non-T rolls.  Which as pointed out guarantees scum a roleblocker.  Also guarantees scum has 3 members. 
Probabilities at this point actually look like this:
TTTT=.0625
TTT=.25
TT=.375
T=.25
0T=.0625
The last 3 have a godfather, so there's a 68.75% chance of a godfather.
There's exactly a 50% chance of a SK (I think there is always exactly 50% chance?  I may have computed that wrong last game of this I played).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 10, 2013, 09:18:10 am
Should we talk about vigilantes too?  I mean I've posted all these thoughts elsewhere also.

1-shot vigs should hold their shots for later.  I think your best role use is to claim whenever you think an IC should claim, and then you can essentially prove yourself (can't be counter-claimed)

If you're an infinite-shot vig, then you shouldn't listen to Galz and Robz, and you should actually go ahead and shoot in order to improve town's winchance.  Galz and Robz will say you shouldn't shoot because you're likely to hit town, and they don't like that, because they really want to have one more lynch rather than your 2 shots.

How about days left (also previously covered)?
With a town of 13 and 3 mafia, we have 9/10 town and 0/1 SK.
With no SK: we can have 7 deaths before we lose, which means 4 mislynches to lose if we don't no-lynch, and don't block a kill.  (i.e. 3 allowed and we can still win)
With a SK: we only get like 5 deaths before we lose (because 4 town v. 3 mafia + SK is essentially a loss), but SK could hit scum at night.  IF SK always hits town different from mafia (which is just a worst-case scenario), we get 2 mislynches to lose.  Obviously there's a lot of variability here though depending on how the SK does, and when/if he dies.  Anyways, SK makes it a much more dangerous game for the town, since there's less room for error.

Note: SK applies to vig except we don't lose at 5v3.  So, we get 3 mislynches and 2 vig-kills.  If we have a SK and vig, this could be a very quick game, but really we still get 2 mislynches in addition to the vig-kills.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 10, 2013, 09:21:23 am
So just lynch whoever you think is suspicious?
Okay - I retract my vote until more people talk.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 10, 2013, 09:23:35 am
So just lynch whoever you think is suspicious?
That's the gist of it!

Another suggestion I'd have for a newer player, if you are about to claim something about your role, really think twice before hitting send.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 10, 2013, 10:35:35 am
Vote Count 1.2:

Robz888 (2): Sudgy, Theorel
Yuma (1): mail-mi
XerxesPraelor (1): Voltaire
Ashersky(1): Nkirbit
Voltaire (2): Twistedarcher, Ashersky
 
Not Voting (6): Eevee, Robz888, Yuma, Chairs, Xerses, Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 10, 2013, 11:30:37 am
Okay, Voltaire's voting for me, so I'm voting for him.
Vote: Voltaire
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 10, 2013, 11:32:39 am
Okay, Voltaire's voting for me, so I'm voting for him.
Vote: Voltaire

That's how you do it!

Has chairs posted here yet? vote: chairs
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 12:15:42 pm
Analyzing the setup becomes much, much easier after one or two flips. I'd say that a massclaim is better on later days, because scum have less places to hide. It's especially hard to solve until we know whether or not we have a Serial Killer -- at that point, the setup could be one letter off, and we have absolutely no idea if it's because there's a Serial Killer, or because someone is lying.

I disagree that Vig should shoot N1. Especially in a game where there's essentially about a 50% chance of a Serial Killer (there's a 50% chance, right?) If you shoot, and you're wrong, you're potentially down to 9 players on D2 without any scum dead. Which is not a great situation.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 10, 2013, 01:02:38 pm
Analyzing the setup becomes much, much easier after one or two flips. I'd say that a massclaim is better on later days, because scum have less places to hide. It's especially hard to solve until we know whether or not we have a Serial Killer -- at that point, the setup could be one letter off, and we have absolutely no idea if it's because there's a Serial Killer, or because someone is lying.

I disagree that Vig should shoot N1. Especially in a game where there's essentially about a 50% chance of a Serial Killer (there's a 50% chance, right?) If you shoot, and you're wrong, you're potentially down to 9 players on D2 without any scum dead. Which is not a great situation.
Yeah, I think this is the best path.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 10, 2013, 01:14:52 pm
If you're an infinite-shot vig, then you shouldn't listen to Galz and Robz, and you should actually go ahead and shoot in order to improve town's winchance.  Galz and Robz will say you shouldn't shoot because you're likely to hit town, and they don't like that, because they really want to have one more lynch rather than your 2 shots.

Vigs, ignore this. Do not shoot. In this same setup, vigs have greatly damaged town. And in many other setups. No shooting please. Thanks.

Vote: theorel
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 01:18:17 pm
If you're an infinite-shot vig, then you shouldn't listen to Galz and Robz, and you should actually go ahead and shoot in order to improve town's winchance.  Galz and Robz will say you shouldn't shoot because you're likely to hit town, and they don't like that, because they really want to have one more lynch rather than your 2 shots.

Vigs, ignore this. Do not shoot. In this same setup, vigs have greatly damaged town. And in many other setups. No shooting please. Thanks.

Vote: theorel

Vote: theorel
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 10, 2013, 01:55:23 pm
If you're an infinite-shot vig, then you shouldn't listen to Galz and Robz, and you should actually go ahead and shoot in order to improve town's winchance.  Galz and Robz will say you shouldn't shoot because you're likely to hit town, and they don't like that, because they really want to have one more lynch rather than your 2 shots.

Vigs, ignore this. Do not shoot. In this same setup, vigs have greatly damaged town. And in many other setups. No shooting please. Thanks.

Vote: theorel

Vote: theorel
Wagon! vote: theorel
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 10, 2013, 02:02:47 pm
If you're an infinite-shot vig, then you shouldn't listen to Galz and Robz, and you should actually go ahead and shoot in order to improve town's winchance.  Galz and Robz will say you shouldn't shoot because you're likely to hit town, and they don't like that, because they really want to have one more lynch rather than your 2 shots.

Vigs, ignore this. Do not shoot. In this same setup, vigs have greatly damaged town. And in many other setups. No shooting please. Thanks.

Vote: theorel

In this same set-up, vigs have never damaged town.  In MIV (modified C9++) the (1-shot) vig didn't shoot, and we lost.
In MXVII (Buffy) the 1-shot vig killed mafia, and helped bring the game to a quicker ending...it's entirely possible that we wouldn't have lynched Frisk at that juncture...but he eliminated the possibility.
In MXXIV (ninjas) I didn't follow.  Looking just now, I see that the vig tried to shoot twice and failed both times, due to being roleblocked by his target?  I have no idea how this actually all played out, and whether it was a net benefit to town.

Robz' statement is verifiably false, because he doesn't know the set-up of games he plays.  I'm betting he's thinking of the JK9++ game...

Now, in other set-ups, vigs may arguably have damaged town.  Yuma shooting the IC, and ash shooting the hider's target (JK9++) were both potentially negatives to town.  Neither of those was actually lost by the vig though, they were lost by bad town-play and good scum-play.  (Ultimately, by Robz and Galzria each voting for me in a lylo situation.  To clarify I include myself in the "bad town-play" part of that because I was the voted player).  In both cases, town lynched scum immediately after the mistaken vig-action before eventually losing.  These are the only 2 games I think of, because these are the ones I was in.  Are there others?  I'm interested now, so I'm going to check.

Vig shots hurting town are (IMO) a purely psychological thing.  It's like viewing mislynches as ultimately harmful to town.  They aren't, town deaths just don't hurt town that badly (except when they're strong pro-town voices being killed off).  If you shoot twice we lose 1 lynch.  That could be the lynch that catches scum, OR you could hit scum and we could be on our way to victory.  I think there is likely a psychological effect against scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 02:06:29 pm
I think it all comes down to whether you think Vigs are more or less likely to hit scum than lynches are. I agree that it's a psychological effect, and part of it is natural (other town members hate having decisions taken out of their hands and placed into the vigilante's hands).

In Samurai and Ninjas, we got really lucky with the Vig. Vig was going to shoot town RB, but town RB blocked vig two nights in a row. In the end, it helped us narrow down who scum was, but we were very close to having a town PR killed N1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 02:07:36 pm
Although, if the Vig thinks he will be able to live past N1 or N2, holding off is almost certainly better. If you have 2 shots to replace a lynch, then you want those shots to come later. So if you have a choice, N2 and N3 is almost certainly superior to N1 and N2.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 10, 2013, 03:06:11 pm
Arguable.  It leaves town at even number on the last day (i.e. 5v3) and so all 5 townies need to vote scum.  After lynch they go to 4v3, and vig can save them if he picks right.  I prefer vig shoots nights 1 and 2, so you don't end up in a 5v3 situation.  (See MXXIII as an example why this is a bad idea)

Okay, Looking back through the games:
MXXIX (Dr Who): town has vig who shoots every night.  Town wins.  (There was lots of stuff going on here like vig and SK intersecting, no reveals of nightkill alignments, but ultimately vig shot, town won).
MXXVIII: weird extra night-lynch-kinda thing.  Town used it to good effect later in the game.
MXXIV: vig shot every night, town won.  (yes he tried to shoot town and was blocked...the point is that he did shoot, and it did NOT actually hurt town)
MXXIII: 2-shot vig shot night2-town lost.
MXIX: 1-shot vig existed, didn't shoot, town lost.
MXVIII: 1-shot day-vig.  Shot town (Day4).  Town lost.
MXVII: one-shot Vig shot mafia(N2), town won.
MXVI: looks like one-shot vig shot mafia(N3), town still lost.
MXV: vig died N0.  town won.
MXIV: day-vig? didn't shoot, town lost.
MXII: vig shot hider target and died N1.  Town eventually lost.
MIX: vig shot mafia/werewolf night1 (looks like?) shot town after that.  SK eventually won.
MVIII: 2-shot vig shot IC night 3.  This was widely regarded as a mistake. town lost.
MVI: one-shot weak vig killed mafia and was saved by doctor (N2).  Town won.
MV: insane doctor (i.e. vig) shot mafia for the win. town won.
MIV: one-shot vig didn't shoot. town lost.

I dunno, I'm not seeing this crazy huge negative impact vigilantes have from shooting.  Not shooting is just as bad.

If we eliminate the one-shots we have only games where the vig shot every night they were alive.  In every one of these games, the vig shot Night1.  (I think these are V, IX, XII, XXIV, XXIX.  town won 3, SK won once, mafia won once.)

I think we probably need more data points...but here's how it works out so far (I'm logging the full-vigs that shot every night as night1, since they're the only ones that have done it):
Vig Shot: Night 1/Day 2  Night 2/Day 3   Night 3/Day 4   Didn't Shoot
Town Wins:     3                   2                     0                    1
Scum Wins:     2                   1                     3                    3

(Note: I didn't include MXXVIII. MXV I counted as vig didn't shoot, since he didn't have a chance.)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 10, 2013, 03:07:54 pm
Hopefully that's all accurate.  I might have made an error somewhere though.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 04:50:01 pm
I shot RB means full RB, like doc.  Worth thinking about claiming if you are one.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 04:50:58 pm
Also, for the millionth time, I did NOT shoot the Hider target.  I shot Cayvie in JK9++.  The Hider hid behind me and mafia NKed me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 10, 2013, 06:13:37 pm
Okay, Voltaire's voting for me, so I'm voting for him.
Vote: Voltaire

That's how you do it!

Has chairs posted here yet? vote: chairs

OMGUS vote: Voltaire

Glad I was browsing to check on the dueling towns thread!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:00:43 pm
On vig discussion I think it comes back to a high reward/high risk debate. When it helps, it is awesome. When it hurts, it hurts awful... this coming from me who shot Eevee in MVIII.

I do think one point has been neglected in the discussion about vigs though. And it is the main point that I think separates it the most from lynching. Basically with a vig you have the potential to shoot an unclaimed PR. With lynching there is generally enough time between L-1 and the hammer for someone to claim. This allows town to consdier the claim and determine whether they want to risk killing off a PR. Not so with vigs (see exception below). Vigs shoot and then the player is dead (especially night vigs, day vigs don't work this way and I think are more powerful to town as such, but more rarely seen because of this). There is no chance for him to claim. Ok... well hitting a PR isn't going to happen that often. Maybe. But often enough that it is bad. Remember... I shot Eevee (an unclaimed PR).

Exception: once everyone has claimed, vigs are much more powerful. They can (with the help of town) determine whether or not to shoot claimed VTs or claimed PRs depending on the context of the claims and the known setup. In addition vigs can be used to shoot a player if town chooses wrong in a claim/counterclaim situation.

End story: I think vigs are useful, but are less useful day1 when the vig himself has less information to work with. If I am a vig, I am not going to be shooting tonight, I might consider shooting tomorrow... it depends. On days thereon out I am more likely to shoot.

But I think shooting night1 just isn't smart. This is especially true in games that might have a SK. If the vig 100% doesn't shoot night1 and we have 2 kills we are guaranteed to have a SK. I think this information alone is reason enough to not have the vig shoot and it is the reason I am asking everyone to make this statement:

If I am the vig, I will not shoot Night1.

If everyone makes this statement and lives up to it and there are two kills tonight, we have a SK. If we don't, we probably don't have a SK (yes roleblocking/or SK just not shooting for WIFOM purposes). And if we do have a SK we are that much closer to solving the setup. Again this only works if every single person in this game agrees to this statement. So, I am going to be hounding you to make this statement and if you are a vig and make this statement and don't live up to... don't expect to be believed come claim time... because you won't.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 07:08:01 pm
If I were the Vig, I would absolutely shoot tonight.

But, I'm the 1-Shot Doctor.  So I can't shoot.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:09:07 pm
If I were the Vig, I would absolutely shoot tonight.

So you can potentially shoot the cop that you need for the follow-the-cop plan to work... I just don't see it. I really don't! If we think that is a possibility why screw it up with such a dumb move?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:10:39 pm
anyone else having a really hard time posting? that last one took about 5 tries to get through...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 07:11:34 pm
If I were the Vig, I would absolutely shoot tonight.

So you can potentially shoot the cop that you need for the follow-the-cop plan to work... I just don't see it. I really don't! If we think that is a possibility why screw it up with such a dumb move?

Why are we arguing about something that, in this case (me), doesn't matter?  I love vigs.  I think they should shoot.  Others disagree.  That's the game.

As you mention, high-risk, high-reward.  If the Vig kills the Scum Roleblocker on N1, we can follow-the-cop.  That's the counter to your worry.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 07:11:46 pm
anyone else having a really hard time posting? that last one took about 5 tries to get through...

Yes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:14:24 pm
If I were the Vig, I would absolutely shoot tonight.

So you can potentially shoot the cop that you need for the follow-the-cop plan to work... I just don't see it. I really don't! If we think that is a possibility why screw it up with such a dumb move?

Why are we arguing about something that, in this case (me), doesn't matter?  I love vigs.  I think they should shoot.  Others disagree.  That's the game.

As you mention, high-risk, high-reward.  If the Vig kills the Scum Roleblocker on N1, we can follow-the-cop.  That's the counter to your worry.

Well you have some sway with people I think. I know I am not trying to convince you, but our conversation might convince others... And the point that I am making is that the part about the sK only works if everyone single person agrees to it, otherwise if have 2 kills, we are left wondering... SK or vig?

Do you think that the utility of finding out if there is a SK in the mix is worth having the vig shoot. I really thought you would agree with me on this point as you are so pro figuring our the setup...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 10, 2013, 07:22:56 pm
If I am the vig, I will not shoot Night1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 07:31:34 pm
If I am the vig, I will not limit my potential utility in a bolded statement, and will instead choose myself what I believe to be the best decision for town, whether that be to shoot or not to shoot N1.

Blanket telling PRs what to do doesn't make sense here. I trust any vig to make their own decisions, since they ARE playing to town's win condition.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:33:53 pm
If I am the vig, I will not limit my potential utility in a bolded statement, and will instead choose myself what I believe to be the best decision for town, whether that be to shoot or not to shoot N1.

Blanket telling PRs what to do doesn't make sense here. I trust any vig to make their own decisions, since they ARE playing to town's win condition.

well if that is the case then no one else bold any statements... like i said we need 100% for this to work. and we already aren't. w/o it, it is worthless... so whatever.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 07:36:43 pm
I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 07:38:07 pm
If I were the Vig, I would absolutely shoot tonight.

So you can potentially shoot the cop that you need for the follow-the-cop plan to work... I just don't see it. I really don't! If we think that is a possibility why screw it up with such a dumb move?

Why are we arguing about something that, in this case (me), doesn't matter?  I love vigs.  I think they should shoot.  Others disagree.  That's the game.

As you mention, high-risk, high-reward.  If the Vig kills the Scum Roleblocker on N1, we can follow-the-cop.  That's the counter to your worry.

Well you have some sway with people I think. I know I am not trying to convince you, but our conversation might convince others... And the point that I am making is that the part about the sK only works if everyone single person agrees to it, otherwise if have 2 kills, we are left wondering... SK or vig?

Do you think that the utility of finding out if there is a SK in the mix is worth having the vig shoot. I really thought you would agree with me on this point as you are so pro figuring our the setup...

Do I really sway anyone, though?  No more than you, it seems, looking at PPE posts.

I think finding out if an SK exists is important.  Depending on how D1 goes for the SK, I could see them not shooting just to hide themselves from D2 suspicion.

Plus, Vigs can just claim their shots.  Or SKs can say they are vigs.  Blanket "no vigs shooting" policies don't make for perfect plans, anymore than my ideas do.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 07:38:17 pm
I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.

Still scummy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 07:39:23 pm
I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.

Still scummy.

To clarify, they don't have more information, and I do agree with anti-vig folks that the risk/reward scenario generally favors anti-town folks, so scum will make arguments like TA's to not discourage while not encouraging Vigs.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:39:32 pm
I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.

i agree in general, except that in this setup we can use this to help determine if we have sk or not. i think that information is worth giving any vig a chance to decide for themselves if the should shoot or not... this only applies to night1... after that vigs do whatever they want. i suggest not shooting, but for different reasons than my night 1 bolded statement
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:42:03 pm
I think finding out if an SK exists is important.  Depending on how D1 goes for the SK, I could see them not shooting just to hide themselves from D2 suspicion.

yes we only gain info if there are 2 shots... anything else we are left wondering. but i think a sk still shoots... that is their weapon. a no kill night for the sk is like a no lynch for town...

man typing one handed... super hard...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:42:40 pm
I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.

Still scummy.

To clarify, they don't have more information, and I do agree with anti-vig folks that the risk/reward scenario generally favors anti-town folks, so scum will make arguments like TA's to not discourage while not encouraging Vigs.

vote: ta
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 07:49:09 pm
I agree that a SK wouldn't hold off on shooting just to stay hidden.

How do they not have more information? They know more letters of the setup. It doesn't lead to more information on to whether or not there is an SK, since it alternates, and won't affect the decision on whether to shoot or not N1 probably, but how do you they not have more information on the setup?

It's very possibly best for the vig to not shoot, as Robz and others say. But absolutely saying "the vig should never shoot tonight" takes away a possible tool from a town PR. The vig should determine tonight what they believe the best option is.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 07:57:26 pm
I agree that a SK wouldn't hold off on shooting just to stay hidden.

How do they not have more information? They know more letters of the setup. It doesn't lead to more information on to whether or not there is an SK, since it alternates, and won't affect the decision on whether to shoot or not N1 probably, but how do you they not have more information on the setup?

Huh?

If there are 2 kills and we know for 100% that a vig didn't shoot we know there is a vig. There has to be. That gives us more information because we can eliminate half the possibilities and know that we have a sk to deal with.

But that only works if we 100% sure that the vig did not shoot. If we aren't 100% sure... well then the whole exercise is moot and becomes wifom...

that potential for surity is worth the one night loss of pr independence.

am i making sense?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 08:09:50 pm
Ok, we are talking about different things here. I am talking about the Vig individually having more knowledge of the setup, while you are talking about all of us having more knowledge (ie on the existence of a SK). I agree that your plan will let us know the existence of a SK, but I honestly think we will know that sooner or later. There's also the possibilities of a kill getting blocked, doctored, etc., so we wouldn't know for certain, so the plan isn't good.

Odds are, there won't be a vig shot, given the community census about N1 vig shots. But I don't think we should completely take that option away from the vig. The vig will know better on whether or not he should shoot N1 than we will, especially this early in the day.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 08:14:06 pm
I agree that a SK wouldn't hold off on shooting just to stay hidden.

How do they not have more information? They know more letters of the setup. It doesn't lead to more information on to whether or not there is an SK, since it alternates, and won't affect the decision on whether to shoot or not N1 probably, but how do you they not have more information on the setup?

It's very possibly best for the vig to not shoot, as Robz and others say. But absolutely saying "the vig should never shoot tonight" takes away a possible tool from a town PR. The vig should determine tonight what they believe the best option is.

Every player knows more letters than what's public, unless you are VT, I suppose.  Vig's don't have more information than me, for example.

But I assumed you were talking about "information" in the sense that their decision on who to kill would be based on better info.  Because that's how it read, and that's what is important in discussing the pros and cons of the kill.  The fear is that Town Vig will kill Town Other PR (or VT, I guess) instead of scum, and all without the ability to claim at L-1, etc.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 08:14:55 pm
Ok, we are talking about different things here. I am talking about the Vig individually having more knowledge of the setup, while you are talking about all of us having more knowledge (ie on the existence of a SK). I agree that your plan will let us know the existence of a SK, but I honestly think we will know that sooner or later. There's also the possibilities of a kill getting blocked, doctored, etc., so we wouldn't know for certain, so the plan isn't good.

Odds are, there won't be a vig shot, given the community census about N1 vig shots. But I don't think we should completely take that option away from the vig. The vig will know better on whether or not he should shoot N1 than we will, especially this early in the day.

But why would set-up knowledge help th vig when he's deciding who to kill?  That's the fallacy of your argument, and continuing to push it is scummy.

vote: TA if I wasn't already.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 08:16:12 pm
I agree that a SK wouldn't hold off on shooting just to stay hidden.

How do they not have more information? They know more letters of the setup. It doesn't lead to more information on to whether or not there is an SK, since it alternates, and won't affect the decision on whether to shoot or not N1 probably, but how do you they not have more information on the setup?

It's very possibly best for the vig to not shoot, as Robz and others say. But absolutely saying "the vig should never shoot tonight" takes away a possible tool from a town PR. The vig should determine tonight what they believe the best option is.

Every player knows more letters than what's public, unless you are VT, I suppose.  Vig's don't have more information than me, for example.

But I assumed you were talking about "information" in the sense that their decision on who to kill would be based on better info.  Because that's how it read, and that's what is important in discussing the pros and cons of the kill.  The fear is that Town Vig will kill Town Other PR (or VT, I guess) instead of scum, and all without the ability to claim at L-1, etc.

I agree that it's a large downside, and note that I'm not saying that the vig SHOULD shoot night.

What I'm saying is that the Vig should make that decision on his own, rather than us telling him what to do.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 08:18:38 pm
Ok, we are talking about different things here. I am talking about the Vig individually having more knowledge of the setup, while you are talking about all of us having more knowledge (ie on the existence of a SK). I agree that your plan will let us know the existence of a SK, but I honestly think we will know that sooner or later. There's also the possibilities of a kill getting blocked, doctored, etc., so we wouldn't know for certain, so the plan isn't good.

Odds are, there won't be a vig shot, given the community census about N1 vig shots. But I don't think we should completely take that option away from the vig. The vig will know better on whether or not he should shoot N1 than we will, especially this early in the day.

sooner or later... sure we might know... but sooner is better i think as it restricts what mafia is capable of claiming.

and yes... possibilit of doc/rb/whatever...

I already said it only works if we have 2 NKs. anything else we don't know... but don't tell me that a plan that has one of its results being only 1 NK is a bad thing...

and yes community consensus... but community consensus isn;t good enough for this... it only works if everyone explicitly states... but like I said I have given up on that, as you didn't explicity state and don't seem inclined to at any point... so discussion over?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 10, 2013, 08:28:07 pm
If I am the vig, I will not shoot Night1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 08:32:54 pm
I already said it only works if we have 2 NKs. anything else we don't know... but don't tell me that a plan that has one of its results being only 1 NK is a bad thing...

I would point out the possibility that even 3 NKs (or 4, etc.) don't mean anything either.  The set-up allows for multiple vigs.  Plus mafia and SK NKs.

I get your plan, but it seems tough to pull off, and even then, we can't be sure.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 08:50:58 pm
I think, if there's more than one NK, the vig, if any, should claim.  If no vig claims, then it was the mafia and SK that killed.

So now lets move on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 08:51:46 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 08:54:52 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

What established norm?  And what sort of reasoning is that?

We've had two games.  Not exactly enough to establish anything.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 09:07:32 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

What established norm?  And what sort of reasoning is that?

We've had two games.  Not exactly enough to establish anything.

Outside of mafia established norms.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 09:13:41 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

What established norm?  And what sort of reasoning is that?

We've had two games.  Not exactly enough to establish anything.

Outside of mafia established norms.

What are those?  I have no idea what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 09:19:29 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

What established norm?  And what sort of reasoning is that?

We've had two games.  Not exactly enough to establish anything.

Outside of mafia established norms.

What are those?  I have no idea what you are talking about.

The main thing is the vig on N1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 09:30:06 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

You realize that this doesn't speak at all to Ash's alignment?

Vote: Sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 09:38:11 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

You realize that this doesn't speak at all to Ash's alignment?

Vote: Sudgy

Vote: Twistedarcher
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 09:38:42 pm
Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

You realize that this doesn't speak at all to Ash's alignment?

Vote: Sudgy

combine that with this:
If you're an infinite-shot vig, then you shouldn't listen to Galz and Robz, and you should actually go ahead and shoot in order to improve town's winchance.  Galz and Robz will say you shouldn't shoot because you're likely to hit town, and they don't like that, because they really want to have one more lynch rather than your 2 shots.

Vigs, ignore this. Do not shoot. In this same setup, vigs have greatly damaged town. And in many other setups. No shooting please. Thanks.

Vote: theorel

Vote: theorel

I think I will vote sudgy as well. When I first saw him following Robz on this it raised a flag, but not enough for me to vote. Now I think there is enough.

PPE and combined with:

Vote: ashersky for always saying to do things different than the established norm.

You realize that this doesn't speak at all to Ash's alignment?

Vote: Sudgy

Vote: Twistedarcher

I feel even better....
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 09:39:06 pm
should be a vote: sudgy in there.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 09:40:18 pm
should be a vote: sudgy in there.

Vote: yuma
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 10:00:16 pm
What the heck are you doing, Sudgy?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 10, 2013, 10:03:52 pm
What the heck are you doing, Sudgy?
If I were to guess, OMGUSRVS.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 10, 2013, 10:04:36 pm
*grumbles* I hate when I can't tell RVS apart from regular votes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 10:09:27 pm
*grumbles* I hate when I can't tell RVS apart from regular votes.

I do think it is weird he moved from what appeared to be a non-RVS vote on ash, to RVS votes on me and you... (assuming these later two were actually RVS)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 10:09:51 pm
*grumbles* I hate when I can't tell RVS apart from regular votes.

I do think it is weird he moved from what appeared to be a non-RVS vote on ash, to RVS votes on me and you... (assuming these later two were actually RVS)

and by weird I should clarify that I mean slightly to moderately scummy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 10, 2013, 10:19:47 pm
*grumbles* I hate when I can't tell RVS apart from regular votes.

I do think it is weird he moved from what appeared to be a non-RVS vote on ash, to RVS votes on me and you... (assuming these later two were actually RVS)

and by weird I should clarify that I mean slightly to moderately scummy.

I do agree it's weird, but why do you think that it's scummy?  What incentives does scum have to act this way?

It reads pretty alignment-neutral to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 10, 2013, 10:19:59 pm
Unvote, btw.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 10, 2013, 10:25:28 pm
The one thing that gives me pause about Ash's claim is that it's 100% a safe fake-claim coming from a 2 man Goon/Godfather team.  If that team exists, there are at least 5 T's, leaving at most two PRs for town.  One of those PRs is Galzria, so if Ash were a Goon or a Godfather on a two-man, I think it's a very, very strong claim for him to make.

That being said, the simpler option is that Ash is actually just a 1-shot doctor.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 10, 2013, 10:26:06 pm
*grumbles* I hate when I can't tell RVS apart from regular votes.

I do think it is weird he moved from what appeared to be a non-RVS vote on ash, to RVS votes on me and you... (assuming these later two were actually RVS)

and by weird I should clarify that I mean slightly to moderately scummy.

I do agree it's weird, but why do you think that it's scummy?  What incentives does scum have to act this way?

It reads pretty alignment-neutral to me.

I think that if he is scum he isn't trying to act this way, not all together.... but rather as scum potentially trying to do too many things. maybe trying to simultaneously play the rvs game to blend in early but at the same time placing what look to be serious votes and backing them up when called out... after that reverting back to rvs when he realizes his "serious" reason isn't very good...

and keep in mind it isn't just rvs, it is also omgus (which to me looks like forced rvs, rvs should come naturally. his votes look like he thought "shoot, i need to get back to rvs... i made this too serious too soon, omgusrvs!!!"
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 10, 2013, 10:36:35 pm
*grumbles* I hate when I can't tell RVS apart from regular votes.

I do think it is weird he moved from what appeared to be a non-RVS vote on ash, to RVS votes on me and you... (assuming these later two were actually RVS)

and by weird I should clarify that I mean slightly to moderately scummy.

I do agree it's weird, but why do you think that it's scummy?  What incentives does scum have to act this way?

It reads pretty alignment-neutral to me.

I think that if he is scum he isn't trying to act this way, not all together.... but rather as scum potentially trying to do too many things. maybe trying to simultaneously play the rvs game to blend in early but at the same time placing what look to be serious votes and backing them up when called out... after that reverting back to rvs when he realizes his "serious" reason isn't very good...

and keep in mind it isn't just rvs, it is also omgus (which to me looks like forced rvs, rvs should come naturally. his votes look like he thought "shoot, i need to get back to rvs... i made this too serious too soon, omgusrvs!!!"

Or, to put it simpler: sudgy is trying to pull an ashersky, but it's so out of character for him that it isn't going to work.

vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 10:37:35 pm
My ash vote was still RVS, I was just trying to make it look like it wasn't to get reactions.  That's how ash always plays.  And I was trying to get RVS going because we were kind of done talking theory and nothing else was going on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 10, 2013, 10:40:56 pm
My ash vote was still RVS, I was just trying to make it look like it wasn't to get reactions.  That's how ash always plays.  And I was trying to get RVS going because we were kind of done talking theory and nothing else was going on.

Were you votes on TA and Yuma RVS?  To get reactions going?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 10, 2013, 10:48:15 pm
My ash vote was still RVS, I was just trying to make it look like it wasn't to get reactions.  That's how ash always plays.  And I was trying to get RVS going because we were kind of done talking theory and nothing else was going on.

Were you votes on TA and Yuma RVS?  To get reactions going?

How dare you suggest that?  Vote: nkirbit
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 11, 2013, 04:43:50 am
Nothing else was going on, huh? There was a wagon forming on TA!! Why would you want to revert us back to rvs when ash, yuma and TA had just gotten the game going?

Voting someone for not following the norms also annoys me greatly, even if it's my frustration leaking through, I'm going to vote: sudgy.

That you realized you got caught of scummy behavior and tried to make it all a joke to escape the suspicion is also a believable scum narrative for me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 11, 2013, 06:27:39 am
I think Sudgy's innocent because he was pointing out correct flaws in Ash's analysis, so who should I vote for?

I would vote for Ashersky, but in case he's good, it would be too great of a loss because of all the talking and reasoning he's doing. I guess I'll vote for someone on his side who doesn't talk much, then.
Vote: Twistedarcher
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 11, 2013, 07:02:18 am
I think Sudgy's innocent because he was pointing out correct flaws in Ash's analysis, so who should I vote for?

I would vote for Ashersky, but in case he's good, it would be too great of a loss because of all the talking and reasoning he's doing. I guess I'll vote for someone on his side who doesn't talk much, then.
Vote: Twistedarcher
What were the correct flaws sudgy was pointing out in ash's analysis, and why did pointing them out make you think he is innocent?

Why do you think Ash and TA are "on the same side" (what do you mean by that?). As far as I can see, ashersky made a point of voting TA a couple of times, lumping them together seems weird to me.

And finally, TA doesn't talk much? He has 21 posts to your 6, as far as I can see only ashersky has posted more than he has.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 11, 2013, 07:40:14 am
Glad we could have this discussion.
btw, yuma: If I am a vig I will definitely shoot night1  To do otherwise would be to work against town's win-con IMO, which should be obvious from every post I've ever made regarding vig's.  This whole argument started with me saying "vig should ignore advice to contrary and shoot tonight".  I honestly don't see how you would have thought that I would ever commit to not shooting.

There, now we have all variations of the bolded statement available for scum to comb through.

To nkirbit's point on the potential for ash' fake-claim given a 2-man team.  We would eventually know that it's a 2-man team (when we didn't lose), and he would be 100% outed at that time.  It could get him to lylo, but he's insta-lynched at lylo.  So, I think it's worth ignoring that particular possibility, because if it's true we can just lynch ash at the appropriate time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 11, 2013, 07:52:54 am
Glad we could have this discussion.
btw, yuma: If I am a vig I will definitely shoot night1  To do otherwise would be to work against town's win-con IMO, which should be obvious from every post I've ever made regarding vig's.  This whole argument started with me saying "vig should ignore advice to contrary and shoot tonight".  I honestly don't see how you would have thought that I would ever commit to not shooting.

There, now we have all variations of the bolded statement available for scum to comb through.

To nkirbit's point on the potential for ash' fake-claim given a 2-man team.  We would eventually know that it's a 2-man team (when we didn't lose), and he would be 100% outed at that time.  It could get him to lylo, but he's insta-lynched at lylo.  So, I think it's worth ignoring that particular possibility, because if it's true we can just lynch ash at the appropriate time.

If I am the vig, I will not limit my potential utility in a bolded statement, and will instead choose myself what I believe to be the best decision for town, whether that be to shoot or not to shoot N1.

Blanket telling PRs what to do doesn't make sense here. I trust any vig to make their own decisions, since they ARE playing to town's win condition.

well if that is the case then no one else bold any statements... like i said we need 100% for this to work. and we already aren't. w/o it, it is worthless... so whatever.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 11, 2013, 07:59:46 am
theorel because you never discussed the implications that a vig not shooting on night1 can have on our impact of figuring out if there is a sk. regardless of whether you think in general shooting on night1 is good or not (I personally am somewhere in the middle most of the time on this, but because I play a little more conservatively lean toward don't shoot) I think if you can see the information that can be gained you would see not shooting--only on night1--would be worth it.

If you think not shooting on night1 is good, then obviously it is worth it.

If you think shooting on night1 is good, then I still think it is worth it. Because what are we trading. A potential kill of an unknown alignment that has the ability to kill mafia/town/PR compared to gaining valuable information about the setup, specifically regarding the serial killer which can then translate into information regarding what sort of a scum team we are up against, we can then translate into limited amount of fake claims that mafia can make.


Basically I feel like the people who have answered negative to this idea have basically said: "I already decided beforehand that shooting on night1 is good, therefore it is good, because I decided beforehand." and haven't really looked at the implications behind what I am trying to suggest.

But again, as I said before, this only works if 100% of the people do it. Obviously we don't have 100%. So this whole point is moot and I am only talking about it because you specifically asked why I thought you might commit to not shooting. I think this conversation needs to be over otherwise.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 11, 2013, 11:37:30 am
Glad we could have this discussion.
btw, yuma: If I am a vig I will definitely shoot night1  To do otherwise would be to work against town's win-con IMO, which should be obvious from every post I've ever made regarding vig's.  This whole argument started with me saying "vig should ignore advice to contrary and shoot tonight".  I honestly don't see how you would have thought that I would ever commit to not shooting.

There, now we have all variations of the bolded statement available for scum to comb through.

To nkirbit's point on the potential for ash' fake-claim given a 2-man team.  We would eventually know that it's a 2-man team (when we didn't lose), and he would be 100% outed at that time.  It could get him to lylo, but he's insta-lynched at lylo.  So, I think it's worth ignoring that particular possibility, because if it's true we can just lynch ash at the appropriate time.
I think the vig should not shoot night 1 even if you believe so. That way, if there are 2 kills we know there is an SK, or if only 1 it's less possible.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 11, 2013, 11:53:39 am
I agree that a SK wouldn't hold off on shooting just to stay hidden.

How do they not have more information? They know more letters of the setup. It doesn't lead to more information on to whether or not there is an SK, since it alternates, and won't affect the decision on whether to shoot or not N1 probably, but how do you they not have more information on the setup?

It's very possibly best for the vig to not shoot, as Robz and others say. But absolutely saying "the vig should never shoot tonight" takes away a possible tool from a town PR. The vig should determine tonight what they believe the best option is.

Every player knows more letters than what's public, unless you are VT, I suppose.  Vig's don't have more information than me, for example.

But I assumed you were talking about "information" in the sense that their decision on who to kill would be based on better info.  Because that's how it read, and that's what is important in discussing the pros and cons of the kill.  The fear is that Town Vig will kill Town Other PR (or VT, I guess) instead of scum, and all without the ability to claim at L-1, etc.

If we have a vig, they know more about the setup than any other Town member right now (because they know ash's claim, they know about the IC, and they know about themselves.

If we assume a vig, by the way, that would put us at 1/3 chance for SK and definite Goon+RB+Godfather scumteam (looking at C9++ setup).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 11, 2013, 11:58:49 am
A 1-shot Vig shooting on N1 does not cause any confusion. 3 kills N1? SK in game. 2 kills N1? The Vig claims on D2. 1 kill N1? We've got some darn good Doctors, and who knows?

The point is, a 1 shot Vig in no way needs to pre-claim. All that does is let a potential SK know if he needs to fire or not. If he withholds N1 because he knows a 1 shot Vig will fire, he can frame that player by then shooting N2 and beyond (or at the very least, cast suspicion on that player).

FoS at anybody who pre-announced what they would do as a one shot vigilante. Stop giving potential SK's more information.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 11, 2013, 12:09:35 pm
A 1-shot Vig shooting on N1 does not cause any confusion. 3 kills N1? SK in game. 2 kills N1? The Vig claims on D2. 1 kill N1? We've got some darn good Doctors, and who knows?

The point is, a 1 shot Vig in no way needs to pre-claim. All that does is let a potential SK know if he needs to fire or not. If he withholds N1 because he knows a 1 shot Vig will fire, he can frame that player by then shooting N2 and beyond (or at the very least, cast suspicion on that player).

FoS at anybody who pre-announced what they would do as a one shot vigilante. Stop giving potential SK's more information.

...I thought we were only talking about infinite shot vigs?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 11, 2013, 12:12:19 pm

If we assume a vig, by the way, that would put us at 1/3 chance for SK and definite Goon+RB+Godfather scumteam (looking at C9++ setup).

As before, just because it's 1 of 3 possibilities does not make it a 1/3 chance.  It's still exactly a 50% chance.

My claim should not be percieved to apply if I'm 1-shot.

@yuma/mail-mi: I don't think the benefit is sufficient.  It requires a very specific scenario to occur to matter.  In particular we have to have exactly 2 kills, a SK claiming vigilante OR vig with no SK, and insufficient PRs otherwise to enable it to be true alongside a fake-claim.  Assuming ash's claim is true (which I do assume), that's a rather small window of opportunity for a SK.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 11, 2013, 12:13:39 pm

If we assume a vig, by the way, that would put us at 1/3 chance for SK and definite Goon+RB+Godfather scumteam (looking at C9++ setup).

As before, just because it's 1 of 3 possibilities does not make it a 1/3 chance.  It's still exactly a 50% chance.

My claim should not be percieved to apply if I'm 1-shot.

@yuma/mail-mi: I don't think the benefit is sufficient.  It requires a very specific scenario to occur to matter.  In particular we have to have exactly 2 kills, a SK claiming vigilante OR vig with no SK, and insufficient PRs otherwise to enable it to be true alongside a fake-claim.  Assuming ash's claim is true (which I do assume), that's a rather small window of opportunity for a SK.

...I'm curious how you come to this conclusion that it's 50% chance.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 11, 2013, 12:15:56 pm
...I'm curious how you come to this conclusion that it's 50% chance.

It's the way C9++ works. Look at how the letters are generated. They're not all equally likely.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 11, 2013, 12:17:20 pm
It's always a 50% chance.  In this particular case (i.e. 3 unknown rolls):
chances of 0 T results = 25% (.5)^2
chances of 2 T results = 25%. (.5)^2
Chances of 1 T result = 25% + 25% = 50%.  (TR or RT which are mutually exclusive events)


This is true regardless of how many "roll"s you want to make, as long as it's symmetric.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 11, 2013, 12:18:32 pm
that should really be "as long as it's alternating".
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 11, 2013, 12:26:30 pm
...I'm curious how you come to this conclusion that it's 50% chance.

It's the way C9++ works. Look at how the letters are generated. They're not all equally likely.

Math below assumes we have a Vig, since right now we're discussing Vig.

There's a 50/50 chance that each coin will flip T or not-T.  to get an SK we need exactly 1 coin to flip T (we don't care what other power role(s) are, just whether or not it's a T).

We don't care which of our coins flips T, only that exactly 1 does.

A little bit of math courtesy of Wolfram Alpha states this means we have a 37.5% chance of an SK if we have an infinite vig and ashersky's claim is legitimate.

If you are an infinite vig, keep in mind there is a 37.5% chance of SK.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 11, 2013, 12:28:03 pm
It's always a 50% chance.  In this particular case (i.e. 3 unknown rolls):
chances of 0 T results = 25% (.5)^2
chances of 2 T results = 25%. (.5)^2
Chances of 1 T result = 25% + 25% = 50%.  (TR or RT which are mutually exclusive events)


This is true regardless of how many "roll"s you want to make, as long as it's symmetric.

Wolfram alpha tells me your math is wrong.  See http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F3+coisn+flipping+heads - I'm willing to allow that this is really irrelevant until/unless we have a claimed vig, however.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 11, 2013, 01:07:05 pm
There are only 2 coins...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 11, 2013, 01:09:39 pm
Man, I hate math.

Stop listening to the math hucksters; listen to me.

No shooting.

Okay.

Let's move on.

Someone claimed soemthing, I here? I can't figure out what...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 11, 2013, 01:10:16 pm
Someone claimed soemthing, I here? I can't figure out what...

Can't tell if you're serious or not. Ash claimed 1-shot Doc.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 11, 2013, 01:10:54 pm
There are only 2 coins...

...wait, what?

...

...god I'm retarded.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 11, 2013, 01:11:07 pm
Someone claimed soemthing, I here? I can't figure out what...

Can't tell if you're serious or not. Ash claimed 1-shot Doc.
'

I'm serious, I saw it being discussed, but couldn't find the initial post.

Well vote: Ash then.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 11, 2013, 01:12:46 pm
Nothing else was going on, huh? There was a wagon forming on TA!! Why would you want to revert us back to rvs when ash, yuma and TA had just gotten the game going?

Voting someone for not following the norms also annoys me greatly, even if it's my frustration leaking through, I'm going to vote: sudgy.

That you realized you got caught of scummy behavior and tried to make it all a joke to escape the suspicion is also a believable scum narrative for me.

I thought the wagon on TA was still RVS too...

I think Sudgy's innocent because he was pointing out correct flaws in Ash's analysis, so who should I vote for?

I will let you know for future reference, this is a terrible reason to think someone is town.  Mafia would do it too, to seem more towny.  My scum philosophy it to act like town, even when it hurts.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 11, 2013, 01:13:17 pm
I'm serious, I saw it being discussed, but couldn't find the initial post.

Well vote: Ash then.

What do you make of the point that it's a claim that, if he's scum, is guaranteed to get him found out?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 11, 2013, 01:20:40 pm
Not being interested in theory or math is pretty bad in this case, Robz. Ash's claim is pretty darn towny.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 11, 2013, 01:26:20 pm
I'm serious, I saw it being discussed, but couldn't find the initial post.

Well vote: Ash then.

What do you make of the point that it's a claim that, if he's scum, is guaranteed to get him found out?

It's not guaranteed, but it's very likely. But not 100% guaranteed.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 11, 2013, 01:26:50 pm
Sudgy, I'm pretty sure the wagon on me was not RVS.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 11, 2013, 01:29:58 pm
Not being interested in theory or math is pretty bad in this case, Robz. Ash's claim is pretty darn towny.

Oh,I agree! But I don't like Day 1 claiming. He must be punished.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 11, 2013, 01:46:45 pm
Not being interested in theory or math is pretty bad in this case, Robz. Ash's claim is pretty darn towny.

Oh,I agree! But I don't like Day 1 claiming. He must be punished.

...Even when it makes sense?  Vote: Robz888, and this isn't as much RVS as before.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 11, 2013, 01:54:43 pm
This thread is getting large.  Shouldn't we be moving forward by now?  Admittedly, I've been hindering that myself (partially due to ongoing games, and kind of being checked out of scumhunting atm).  I'm going to try to undo this.

So, there was this thing, where sudgy was found scummy for being kind of ridiculous.  Okay, reread yuma's reasoning, so basically, he's forcing RVS to get out of a bad situation...The fact that ash and sudgy had similar reasoning is kind of funny (i.e. sudgy is trying to play like ash).  I wish people wouldn't try to play like ash...one ash is enough.  I'll keep an eye out.

Are there any other actual case/conversation things going on?  I think Xerxes is voting seriously (presumably not when he voted Voltaire, but his vote on TA looks serious)  It seems odd though...in particular it's taking sudgy's "side" in an "argument" when even sudgy doesn't take his own side in that argument.  He chooses TA out of ash, TA, and yuma (and arguably Eevee, if he read all the way through).  If this were getting to the point of town actually lynching people I would actually be suspicious of someone here.  But I'm doubting that a sudgy lynch could go through here, so scum has no strong reason to support the wagon (IMO).

OTOH that hit 4 votes kind of fast.  Is that normal?  I'm used to a slower build-up.

Okay, so that's part of the same thing.

Oh, I'm going to unvote  Robz seems able to get enough suspicion without my random vote there.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 11, 2013, 08:10:27 pm

If we assume a vig, by the way, that would put us at 1/3 chance for SK and definite Goon+RB+Godfather scumteam (looking at C9++ setup).

As before, just because it's 1 of 3 possibilities does not make it a 1/3 chance.  It's still exactly a 50% chance.


I think this is faulty.  There is a 50% chance an SK is in any given game of C9++.

Once rolled, there either is 100% or 0% as far as the other players in a specific game are concerned.  Then, in that specific game, based on a set of specific letters, the chance there is an SK can be determined.

It starts out at 50% because we have no letters.  But as letters appear, we can rule out certain set ups, changing the percentage chance of an SK in this specific game.

So 2/5 or whatever I had said previously is correct.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 11, 2013, 08:11:17 pm
Someone claimed soemthing, I here? I can't figure out what...

Can't tell if you're serious or not. Ash claimed 1-shot Doc.
'

I'm serious, I saw it being discussed, but couldn't find the initial post.

Well vote: Ash then.

vote: Robz

Wont' be around much today, grumpy baby and tired dad...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 11, 2013, 10:13:04 pm
A 1-shot Vig shooting on N1 does not cause any confusion. 3 kills N1? SK in game. 2 kills N1? The Vig claims on D2. 1 kill N1? We've got some darn good Doctors, and who knows?

The point is, a 1 shot Vig in no way needs to pre-claim. All that does is let a potential SK know if he needs to fire or not. If he withholds N1 because he knows a 1 shot Vig will fire, he can frame that player by then shooting N2 and beyond (or at the very least, cast suspicion on that player).

FoS at anybody who pre-announced what they would do as a one shot vigilante. Stop giving potential SK's more information.

sorry, but this isn't quite true... three kills could be one-shot vig and vig (unlikely, but if we have 3 kills we have to consider it until proven otherwise).

And as for the vig claiming... well sure the vig can claim? But do we believe them? Or are they SK claiming vig? I agree that is risky play for SK, but certainly within the realm of possibilities and something we have to consider.

and again, if the end result of this idea was that the SK decides not to shoot... That isn't bad. That is awesome! Yes, we don't get the information, but it is like a town roleblocker! Why is that a bad thing?

All my idea wants is to create a scenario where town gets the most information it possibly can. From what I can tell the only downsides are 1. that a vig doesn't shoot night1 (but is that really a downside? Some apparently thinks it is, I disagree, I think it is middling as night1 shots I think are around 50/50 in terms of hurting/helping town) 2. that it is manipulatable by a SK not shooting and we don't get information (oh, darn, the SK didn't shoot... there was only 1 Night kill, what a horrible night!) 3. it can be manipulatable by town docs or roleblockers and we don't get information (oh, darn, there was only 1 NK, what a horrible night!)

Hopefully this will be my last post about this. I keep telling myself to not talk about it further, but then I keep seeing things that I disagree with and want to talk about. I think this is a good idea, obviously others disagree and I am probably not convincing anyone, but maybe there is a chance?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 11, 2013, 10:22:30 pm
I thought the wagon on TA was still RVS too...

why would you think this?

my vote:

I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.

Still scummy.

To clarify, they don't have more information, and I do agree with anti-vig folks that the risk/reward scenario generally favors anti-town folks, so scum will make arguments like TA's to not discourage while not encouraging Vigs.

is something of a sheep of ashersky's explanation. My vote is obviously not a joke and ash's analysis is very serious in tone

vote: ta

ash's vote:
Ok, we are talking about different things here. I am talking about the Vig individually having more knowledge of the setup, while you are talking about all of us having more knowledge (ie on the existence of a SK). I agree that your plan will let us know the existence of a SK, but I honestly think we will know that sooner or later. There's also the possibilities of a kill getting blocked, doctored, etc., so we wouldn't know for certain, so the plan isn't good.

Odds are, there won't be a vig shot, given the community census about N1 vig shots. But I don't think we should completely take that option away from the vig. The vig will know better on whether or not he should shoot N1 than we will, especially this early in the day.

But why would set-up knowledge help th vig when he's deciding who to kill?  That's the fallacy of your argument, and continuing to push it is scummy.

vote: TA if I wasn't already.


ash's vote here is obviously not RVS either, it continues on the line of thought that he had previously (mentioned above) and is of a serious nature...

neither are RVS at all....

I still don't like Robz's stance on ashersky. But I think I am more inclined to vote for sudgy. vote: sudgy Theorel, this is a real wagon, sometimes you can get a wagon on someone pretty early in a game. Winterspartan in Samuri's and Ninjas for example...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 11, 2013, 11:02:02 pm
I just checked out Samurai's and Ninjas.  And winterspartan's lynch-wagon looks like it started on April 14, while game started April 6 (was there an early wagon I missed maybe?)  I'm maybe being misunderstood or misunderstanding.

sudgy went to 4 votes, essentially as the first item to happen coming out of RVS.  (I guess there was the TwistedArcher thing before that)...And we're like 2 days into the game, right?  That just seems quick to hit 4 votes in a 13-player game.  I don't think this wagon is heading towards a lynch, it's too early.  If this started heading towards a lynch, people would probably oppose it (I would...I think there's more info to get out of day1 if we don't lynch the very first player that does anything scummy right away).  I think that's normal though.  I'm wondering if it should be analyzed differently in light of that.

If a wagon builds up quickly towards a lynch, then we look at players that are building it with some suspicion, because it looks like they may be trying to quicken a mislynch.  Mid-day wagons look like this.  They work a lot like end-day wagons, except sometimes you can back off the wagon, see the target as townie, and analyze the wagon as such.
Early-day wagons are a bit of a different beast.  No one is reasonably going to push an early-wagon to a premature day end...I just don't see the majority of a town going along with it (outside of something really apparent). 

So, how might scum be trying to manipulate such a wagon?  Would they vote for it?  Push against it because, hey town should oppose this quick lynch?  Be ambivalent towards it?  Hmm..probably depends on the player.  Pushing against it though seems like a good way to "look townie", really regardless of the alignment of the target.  It's an early wagon, there are probably misunderstandings, and the lynch probably won't go through.  It's maybe not as obvious as the constant town-read scum-guy, but something of a derivative of the same sort.  Now, it's worth noting that it looks like something town would do, because town would do it.  It's not automatic scum-read or anything, just some thoughts on where it seems likely to find scum in this situation.  I'm wondering if that stance might be a good starting place to try to find scum?  I dunno, I'll try to look over it sometime, although I won't probably be around a lot this weekend.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 11, 2013, 11:05:50 pm
I just checked out Samurai's and Ninjas.  And winterspartan's lynch-wagon looks like it started on April 14, while game started April 6 (was there an early wagon I missed maybe?)  I'm maybe being misunderstood or misunderstanding.

sudgy went to 4 votes, essentially as the first item to happen coming out of RVS.  (I guess there was the TwistedArcher thing before that)...And we're like 2 days into the game, right?  That just seems quick to hit 4 votes in a 13-player game.  I don't think this wagon is heading towards a lynch, it's too early.  If this started heading towards a lynch, people would probably oppose it (I would...I think there's more info to get out of day1 if we don't lynch the very first player that does anything scummy right away).  I think that's normal though.  I'm wondering if it should be analyzed differently in light of that.

If a wagon builds up quickly towards a lynch, then we look at players that are building it with some suspicion, because it looks like they may be trying to quicken a mislynch.  Mid-day wagons look like this.  They work a lot like end-day wagons, except sometimes you can back off the wagon, see the target as townie, and analyze the wagon as such.
Early-day wagons are a bit of a different beast.  No one is reasonably going to push an early-wagon to a premature day end...I just don't see the majority of a town going along with it (outside of something really apparent). 

So, how might scum be trying to manipulate such a wagon?  Would they vote for it?  Push against it because, hey town should oppose this quick lynch?  Be ambivalent towards it?  Hmm..probably depends on the player.  Pushing against it though seems like a good way to "look townie", really regardless of the alignment of the target.  It's an early wagon, there are probably misunderstandings, and the lynch probably won't go through.  It's maybe not as obvious as the constant town-read scum-guy, but something of a derivative of the same sort.  Now, it's worth noting that it looks like something town would do, because town would do it.  It's not automatic scum-read or anything, just some thoughts on where it seems likely to find scum in this situation.  I'm wondering if that stance might be a good starting place to try to find scum?  I dunno, I'll try to look over it sometime, although I won't probably be around a lot this weekend.

I think early wagons are for interactions.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 12, 2013, 10:16:50 am
Vote: xerxes, haven't stopped suspecting sudgy either.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 12, 2013, 07:06:33 pm
I just checked out Samurai's and Ninjas.  And winterspartan's lynch-wagon looks like it started on April 14, while game started April 6 (was there an early wagon I missed maybe?)  I'm maybe being misunderstood or misunderstanding.

sudgy went to 4 votes, essentially as the first item to happen coming out of RVS.  (I guess there was the TwistedArcher thing before that)...And we're like 2 days into the game, right?  That just seems quick to hit 4 votes in a 13-player game.  I don't think this wagon is heading towards a lynch, it's too early.  If this started heading towards a lynch, people would probably oppose it (I would...I think there's more info to get out of day1 if we don't lynch the very first player that does anything scummy right away).  I think that's normal though.  I'm wondering if it should be analyzed differently in light of that.

If a wagon builds up quickly towards a lynch, then we look at players that are building it with some suspicion, because it looks like they may be trying to quicken a mislynch.  Mid-day wagons look like this.  They work a lot like end-day wagons, except sometimes you can back off the wagon, see the target as townie, and analyze the wagon as such.
Early-day wagons are a bit of a different beast.  No one is reasonably going to push an early-wagon to a premature day end...I just don't see the majority of a town going along with it (outside of something really apparent). 

So, how might scum be trying to manipulate such a wagon?  Would they vote for it?  Push against it because, hey town should oppose this quick lynch?  Be ambivalent towards it?  Hmm..probably depends on the player.  Pushing against it though seems like a good way to "look townie", really regardless of the alignment of the target.  It's an early wagon, there are probably misunderstandings, and the lynch probably won't go through.  It's maybe not as obvious as the constant town-read scum-guy, but something of a derivative of the same sort.  Now, it's worth noting that it looks like something town would do, because town would do it.  It's not automatic scum-read or anything, just some thoughts on where it seems likely to find scum in this situation.  I'm wondering if that stance might be a good starting place to try to find scum?  I dunno, I'll try to look over it sometime, although I won't probably be around a lot this weekend.

You are right about WinterSpartan, I misremembered. I should have double checked what I myself was referencing.

But I don't think that negates my point. Just because it is an early wagon doesn't make it invalid. It might be heading toward a lynch, it might not. I think it is faulty to view a wagon in that way. The way I look at wagons, especially day1, is to see where they go. If they continue to build, if the player continues to act suspicious or other players notice suspicious things about the player it will grow and develop and progress toward a lynch. If the player responds in a townie manner or if other players start acting more suspicious it will die off and not progress towards a lynch. But to say outright before that opportunity presents itself that you "don't think this wagon is heading towards a lynch, it's too early" removes that possibility. Organically the wagon will develop or it will die, but saying that it has no chance of growing kills it off artificially before we have a chance to see where it goes I think. Am I making sense?

Basically what I am saying is don't dismiss the case before it has an opportunity to become a case. Dismissing it before it even has a chance prevents us from seeing what it has the potential to become. Maybe that is nothing, maybe it is something, but I for one want to see it. Hence my vote.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 12, 2013, 10:35:49 pm
Robz, why did you vote for ash?  His claim makes quite a bit of sense, so you don't need to vote him over it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 13, 2013, 08:08:37 am
Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Galz, Day ends in a week, on a Sunday. Might I suggest a soft deadline to prevent us from stalling out over the weekend and not getting a lynch?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 13, 2013, 08:15:27 am
Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Galz, Day ends in a week, on a Sunday. Might I suggest a soft deadline to prevent us from stalling out over the weekend and not getting a lynch?

Is Galz playing?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 13, 2013, 08:19:21 am
13. Galzria - Yuan Shao, the Innocent Child

he is only our IC...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 13, 2013, 09:48:05 am
Vote Count 1.3:

Robz888 (1): Yuma
Voltaire (1): Chairs
Chairs (1): Voltaire
Theorel (2): Robz888, Mail-mi
Sudgy (2): Twistedarcher, Ashersky
Nkirbit (1): Sudgy
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Twistedarcher (1): XerxesPraelor

Not Voting (6): Galzria, Nkirbit, Theorel

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 13, 2013, 10:38:55 am
Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Galz, Day ends in a week, on a Sunday. Might I suggest a soft deadline to prevent us from stalling out over the weekend and not getting a lynch?
I agree, we should set a soft deadline.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 13, 2013, 11:18:52 am
Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Galz, Day ends in a week, on a Sunday. Might I suggest a soft deadline to prevent us from stalling out over the weekend and not getting a lynch?

That would be a Saturday, but I still don't like it, so yes. soft Deadline on Friday, 8:00 pm
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 13, 2013, 03:41:22 pm
Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

Galz, Day ends in a week, on a Sunday. Might I suggest a soft deadline to prevent us from stalling out over the weekend and not getting a lynch?

That would be a Saturday, but I still don't like it, so yes. soft Deadline on Friday, 8:00 pm

I would suggest Thursday, because if we don't get it by then, it will be really hard to.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 13, 2013, 04:20:10 pm
I just checked out Samurai's and Ninjas.  And winterspartan's lynch-wagon looks like it started on April 14, while game started April 6 (was there an early wagon I missed maybe?)  I'm maybe being misunderstood or misunderstanding.

sudgy went to 4 votes, essentially as the first item to happen coming out of RVS.  (I guess there was the TwistedArcher thing before that)...And we're like 2 days into the game, right?  That just seems quick to hit 4 votes in a 13-player game.  I don't think this wagon is heading towards a lynch, it's too early.  If this started heading towards a lynch, people would probably oppose it (I would...I think there's more info to get out of day1 if we don't lynch the very first player that does anything scummy right away).  I think that's normal though.  I'm wondering if it should be analyzed differently in light of that.

If a wagon builds up quickly towards a lynch, then we look at players that are building it with some suspicion, because it looks like they may be trying to quicken a mislynch.  Mid-day wagons look like this.  They work a lot like end-day wagons, except sometimes you can back off the wagon, see the target as townie, and analyze the wagon as such.
Early-day wagons are a bit of a different beast.  No one is reasonably going to push an early-wagon to a premature day end...I just don't see the majority of a town going along with it (outside of something really apparent). 

So, how might scum be trying to manipulate such a wagon?  Would they vote for it?  Push against it because, hey town should oppose this quick lynch?  Be ambivalent towards it?  Hmm..probably depends on the player.  Pushing against it though seems like a good way to "look townie", really regardless of the alignment of the target.  It's an early wagon, there are probably misunderstandings, and the lynch probably won't go through.  It's maybe not as obvious as the constant town-read scum-guy, but something of a derivative of the same sort.  Now, it's worth noting that it looks like something town would do, because town would do it.  It's not automatic scum-read or anything, just some thoughts on where it seems likely to find scum in this situation.  I'm wondering if that stance might be a good starting place to try to find scum?  I dunno, I'll try to look over it sometime, although I won't probably be around a lot this weekend.

You are right about WinterSpartan, I misremembered. I should have double checked what I myself was referencing.

But I don't think that negates my point. Just because it is an early wagon doesn't make it invalid. It might be heading toward a lynch, it might not. I think it is faulty to view a wagon in that way. The way I look at wagons, especially day1, is to see where they go. If they continue to build, if the player continues to act suspicious or other players notice suspicious things about the player it will grow and develop and progress toward a lynch. If the player responds in a townie manner or if other players start acting more suspicious it will die off and not progress towards a lynch. But to say outright before that opportunity presents itself that you "don't think this wagon is heading towards a lynch, it's too early" removes that possibility. Organically the wagon will develop or it will die, but saying that it has no chance of growing kills it off artificially before we have a chance to see where it goes I think. Am I making sense?

Basically what I am saying is don't dismiss the case before it has an opportunity to become a case. Dismissing it before it even has a chance prevents us from seeing what it has the potential to become. Maybe that is nothing, maybe it is something, but I for one want to see it. Hence my vote.

I think I essentially disagree with your viewpoint on day1 wagons?  Not sure, I do, but my view of day1 wagons is much more about other players, and very little about the potential lynch.  I always vote day1 to gain information.  Sometimes I'm also voting to lynch.  It's important to at least sometimes want to lynch someone, because otherwise my votes are not genuine, and scum can ignore them.  I'll note that I'm always willing to lynch the target also, because it's day1.  I want to see what sort of reactions develop to a wagon that's starting up.  Some people join the wagon, some people defend the accused, some people ignore it.  Ideally some of those reactions will be alignment tells.  Those alignment tells largely come from the fact that this wagon might lead to a lynch.  Depending on size, speed of growth, closeness to deadline, and strength of arguments against the player, we can guess how likely the wagon is to lead to a lynch. 

Now, scum has 3 major operating principals to my mind regarding wagons: 1. appear like a town-person, 2. arrange a non-scum player to be lynched, 3. enhance suspicion on non-scum players.  I think those are all dependent on how viable the wagon is to lead to a lynch.

A wagon this early in the game, has inherently weak arguments and is far from deadline.  Both of those things make the wagon unlikely to lead to a lynch.  It will probably die on its own.  This is important, because scum knows this, and their reactions to the wagon are going to depend on that information.  Bussing is inherently safe at this point, because chances are wagon's not leading to a lynch.  At the same time, trying to push the wagon to a lynch, might look suspicious, so they'll probably want to avoid that.  I dunno exactly what to look for as "scum activity" regarding this wagon. 

I would argue that it's inherently different from scum activity towards a wagon that's likely to lead to a lynch.  Where they can push it past the brink with little suspicion on town.  Or where they have to really decide whether to defend someone that looks suspicious (town or scum-buddy).

Now, it could be that sudgy keeps acting scummy, and this leads to a lynch.  Sure, but I think it's very unlikely, and I think scum knows that, and so I think scum will react differently than they will at the end of the day when lynch is likely, and I think that's important enough to state it explicitly.  Hopefully, I'll have some time to do so tonight.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 13, 2013, 04:21:12 pm
*Hopefully, I'll have time to look into the behavior around the sudgy wagon tonight*  (Edited out stuff about spending time with family, as irrelevant, but I lost the antecedent)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 13, 2013, 05:25:19 pm
Theorel, I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make. Can you summarize it in a couple of sentences?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 13, 2013, 09:24:32 pm
I think I essentially disagree with your viewpoint on day1 wagons?  Not sure, I do, but my view of day1 wagons is much more about other players, and very little about the potential lynch.

Yes, we disagree. I'll worry about the other players either after the wagon has died or day2 after the lynch. I don't think you way is bad or incorrect or anything, but certainly isn't my way. And I guess my point is to say if you let me do my thing, I'll let you do yours. I think sudgy has been acting scummy, don't give him an escape by saying he won't get lynched so he no longer feels the pressure and the need to respond.

But I am interested to see what you find in your analysis.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 13, 2013, 09:28:46 pm
I'll try...here's a summary:
One of the few interaction non-theory type thingies that's happened in this thread is sudgy's wagon.  I wonder if there are any scum interactions to glean from it?  What should I be looking for?
Supposition 1: that wagon was not going to lead directly to a lynch.  (maybe later in the day, but not before more "stuff" happens)
Supposition 2: The "townie" thing to do was oppose it for growing too fast.
Conclusion: The simplest thing for scum to do for town-cred would be to oppose it, and this wouldn't "cost" them anything (if it were a town-lynch...normally opposing a town-lynch has the cost of an increased likelihood of a scum lynch)

Leads to Question: Did anyone oppose it in a way that looked scummy?

Anyways, I'm actually going to go look now...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 13, 2013, 09:30:29 pm
Leads to Question: Did anyone oppose it in a way that looked scummy?

Did you?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 13, 2013, 09:57:46 pm
Post count... not taking out pregame cause i am lazy...

1. Eevee - 11
2. Robz888 - 14
3. Ashersky - 37
4. Voltaire - 21
5. Yuma - 43
6. Twistedarcher - 24
7. Theorel - 17
8. Sudgy - 22
9. Mail-Mi - 16
10. Chairs - 10
11. Nkirbit - 17
12. Xerses - 6
13. Galzria - Yuan Shao, the Innocent Child - 12
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 13, 2013, 09:58:51 pm
Hmm...reading back I think I was actually arguing on reasons of xerxes' vote.  i.e. I don't think scum would have pushed this lynch in a scummy fashion, because it wasn't likely to go through.  Which led to conjecture as to what would be a scummy way to act towards it.

Anyways, looking back the following players interacted in some fashion:
TA (first vote)
yuma (second vote, added a couple quotes)
mail-mi: descriptive of the OMGUSRVS stuff.
nkribit: quasi-defense (i.e. states that the reasons for the vote read neutral to him)
ash (third vote, adds the comment that sudgy is copying his meta)
Eevee (fourth vote...frustration + believable scum-narrative)
Xerxes: counter-vote on TA.

Theorel: derailed the conversation (sorry about that; to be fair, I'm also the one that tried to re-rail it)

So, people who opposed the sudgy-wagon directly: nkirbit, Xerxes.
People who opposed the sudgy-wagon indirectly: mail-mi, myself.
People who ignored the sudgy-wagon everyone not mentioned above, initially myself also.

I would argue that nkirbit most closely resembles my proposed scum-narrative.  Xerxes also looks scummy for opposing the wagon AND simultaneously pushing suspicion in a different direction.  OTOH, that could be new-player caused rather than scum-caused.  As a new-player I'm not sure how to read the action...it seems too clumsy for scum-play?  But new-scum might end up being clumsy.  Anyways, it weighs in less for that.

Okay, so re-read nkirbit...
He also: does some probability arguing (I don't understand the "haven't done theater" comment, is it relevant?), pushes ash to claim instead of implying his claim, and points out the huge flaw in follow-the-cop (i.e. ROLEBLOCKER).
That last one is definitely pro-town.  Scum could have waited until a cop unwisely claimed.  They could have jumped on it early for town-cred, but it seems more likely they'd hesitate.

Meh, I'm going to vote: nkirbit anyways, and see what happens (maybe it'll result in my having a vote on nkirbit?  Ha, I made the joke before you could)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 13, 2013, 10:14:27 pm
I see your reasons for voting nkirbit and almost voted him (it's better than most things at this point), but, I'm keeping my vote on Robz until he answers my question.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 13, 2013, 10:18:11 pm
I see your reasons for voting nkirbit and almost voted him (it's better than most things at this point), but, I'm keeping my vote on Robz until he answers my question.

How bout you answer my question first...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 13, 2013, 10:20:03 pm
for reference...

I thought the wagon on TA was still RVS too...

why would you think this?

my vote:

I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.

Still scummy.

To clarify, they don't have more information, and I do agree with anti-vig folks that the risk/reward scenario generally favors anti-town folks, so scum will make arguments like TA's to not discourage while not encouraging Vigs.

is something of a sheep of ashersky's explanation. My vote is obviously not a joke and ash's analysis is very serious in tone

vote: ta

ash's vote:
Ok, we are talking about different things here. I am talking about the Vig individually having more knowledge of the setup, while you are talking about all of us having more knowledge (ie on the existence of a SK). I agree that your plan will let us know the existence of a SK, but I honestly think we will know that sooner or later. There's also the possibilities of a kill getting blocked, doctored, etc., so we wouldn't know for certain, so the plan isn't good.

Odds are, there won't be a vig shot, given the community census about N1 vig shots. But I don't think we should completely take that option away from the vig. The vig will know better on whether or not he should shoot N1 than we will, especially this early in the day.

But why would set-up knowledge help th vig when he's deciding who to kill?  That's the fallacy of your argument, and continuing to push it is scummy.

vote: TA if I wasn't already.


ash's vote here is obviously not RVS either, it continues on the line of thought that he had previously (mentioned above) and is of a serious nature...

neither are RVS at all....

I still don't like Robz's stance on ashersky. But I think I am more inclined to vote for sudgy. vote: sudgy Theorel, this is a real wagon, sometimes you can get a wagon on someone pretty early in a game. Winterspartan in Samuri's and Ninjas for example...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 03:30:27 pm
Theorel: theater = "the math", I was phone posting and it autocorrected to that, I guess.

As for Sudgy.. I guess he could be scum trying to emulate Ash's town play here, but again, I don't see why that's more likely to come from scum!Sudgy than town!Sudgy.  Town!Sudgy gets mislynched a lot, so he has every reason to try and emulate the behavior of a player who doesn't get lynched as town that often... and Ash doesn't get lynched often as town.


Or, to put it simpler: sudgy is trying to pull an ashersky, but it's so out of character for him that it isn't going to work.

vote: sudgy

Look, I agree that it's out of character for him, but it's equally out of character for town him and scum him.  I don't see how "Sudgy is acting differently than he normally does" is indicative of Sudgy being scum.

Keep in mind that Sudgy is a player who gets constantly mislynched as town.  Given that, I think it's somewhat reasonable to try and emulate the town play of another player, even as town.  That's not necessarily a scum thing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 14, 2013, 03:32:24 pm
Just so you guys know, I wasn't even thinking of trying to play like ash.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 03:51:47 pm
I'm serious, I saw it being discussed, but couldn't find the initial post.

Well vote: Ash then.

What do you make of the point that it's a claim that, if he's scum, is guaranteed to get him found out?

Multiple people have made posts like this, but I want to re-iterate that this is simply untrue.

If Ashersky were on a mafia team of two members, he knows, 100% of the time, there is no 1-shot doctor in the game.  This is because there would be at least 5 T's in the game, leaving only two town PR rolls.  One of them was an "M" to make Galzria an IC.  There's only one more letter, which isn't enough to make a potential 1-shot doctor who would counterclaim Ashersky.

I bring this up again because people seem to be considering Ash's claim as 100% town, or at least a dangerous claim for scum to make.  In certain cases, it is a perfectly safe claim to make, and I think everyone should keep that in mind.

I don't think we should at all lynch Ash today, but I think everyone is giving him far too much town credit for his claim.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 03:55:09 pm
Vote: Robz

A complete lack of scumhunting.  Calls out people as scummy for suggesting that the Vig should shoot night1.. while this is a view that he does in fact hold, calling people out for it is an easy position to take.  (Jokingly?) votes Ash for him claim.. I'm not sure whether his vote is real or not.  And nothing else.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 03:58:08 pm
Wait, no, Vote: Voltaire

The post of his I just quoted indicates that he wasn't even considering the possibility of their being a 2-man scum team.  Is it because he knows there is a 3-man scum team?  I don't know, but it's a possibility that's stronger than any of my reads right now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 14, 2013, 04:04:00 pm
Nothing I've done so far in this game has been serious. I plan to fix that soon, but I've barely read. Lots of other and IRL stuff going on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 14, 2013, 05:42:04 pm
What do you make of the point that it's a claim that, if he's scum, is guaranteed to get him found out?

Multiple people have made posts like this, but I want to re-iterate that this is simply untrue.

I was going off a post I can no longer find stating ash's claim would get him caught late in the game. Thought it was by theorel, couldn't find it, thought it was then by yuma, couldn't find it. I am not so hot at "theater", so I trust others to do it.

In other news being in multiple games has strained me (as I am still closely following M31 even though I am dead there).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 14, 2013, 05:43:33 pm
Chairs has still done nothing but math posts. Keeping a vote: chairs.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 06:19:03 pm
Vote Count Ash.1:

Robz888 (1): Yuma
Voltaire (2): Chairs, nkirbit
Chairs (1): Voltaire
Theorel (2): Robz888, Mail-mi
Sudgy (2): Twistedarcher, Ashersky
Nkirbit (2): Sudgy, Theorel
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Twistedarcher (1): XerxesPraelor

Not Voting (1): Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 06:19:49 pm
Unluckily, this game and Modern Community both have day ends on Saturday.

We need something to get this game going again.  We've stalled out.  It's the usual mid-D1 lull.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 14, 2013, 06:45:03 pm
I see your reasons for voting nkirbit and almost voted him (it's better than most things at this point), but, I'm keeping my vote on Robz until he answers my question.

Sudgy: How bout you answer my question first...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 14, 2013, 06:45:58 pm
Vote Count Ash.1:

I am not on Robz, I should be on sudgy. But to make doubly sure vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 06:46:41 pm
Nothing I've done so far in this game has been serious. I plan to fix that soon, but I've barely read. Lots of other and IRL stuff going on.

Scum!Robz says and does this more often than town!Robz.

vote: Robz
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 14, 2013, 06:52:53 pm
Nothing I've done so far in this game has been serious. I plan to fix that soon, but I've barely read. Lots of other and IRL stuff going on.

Scum!Robz says and does this more often than town!Robz.

vote: Robz

Yuma and Ashersky are voting the same person mid-D1? Must be bussing.  vote: Robz
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 14, 2013, 06:54:46 pm
Nothing I've done so far in this game has been serious. I plan to fix that soon, but I've barely read. Lots of other and IRL stuff going on.

Scum!Robz says and does this more often than town!Robz.

vote: Robz

Yuma and Ashersky are voting the same person mid-D1? Must be bussing.  vote: Robz

I am not voting for Robz, and haven't been for a while now... at least since Friday I think. Not that I wouldn't mind voting for Robz. I probably would be if it weren't for sudgy and his play and complete lack of response to my queries twice, going on three times...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 06:55:38 pm
Nothing I've done so far in this game has been serious. I plan to fix that soon, but I've barely read. Lots of other and IRL stuff going on.

Scum!Robz says and does this more often than town!Robz.

vote: Robz

Yuma and Ashersky are voting the same person mid-D1? Must be bussing.  vote: Robz

I am not voting for Robz, and haven't been for a while now... at least since Friday I think. Not that I wouldn't mind voting for Robz. I probably would be if it weren't for sudgy and his play and complete lack of response to my queries twice, going on three times...

Oh, I missed your switch to sudgy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 06:56:09 pm
Nothing I've done so far in this game has been serious. I plan to fix that soon, but I've barely read. Lots of other and IRL stuff going on.

Scum!Robz says and does this more often than town!Robz.

vote: Robz

Yuma and Ashersky are voting the same person mid-D1? Must be bussing.  vote: Robz

If the scum-team was me/yuma/Robz, it kills your "2-man scum team ashersky awesome fakeclaim" theory.

Also, we would win.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 14, 2013, 06:57:43 pm
Nothing I've done so far in this game has been serious. I plan to fix that soon, but I've barely read. Lots of other and IRL stuff going on.

Scum!Robz says and does this more often than town!Robz.

vote: Robz

Yuma and Ashersky are voting the same person mid-D1? Must be bussing.  vote: Robz

If the scum-team was me/yuma/Robz, it kills your "2-man scum team ashersky awesome fakeclaim" theory.

Also, we would win.

I don't think I'm the one who came up with that theory.

But I do agree that the scumteam you just described is statistically likely to have a better-than-average win percentage.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 14, 2013, 07:44:22 pm
Vote Count Ash.1:

Robz888 (1): Yuma
Voltaire (2): Chairs, nkirbit
Chairs (1): Voltaire
Theorel (2): Robz888, Mail-mi
Sudgy (2): Twistedarcher, Ashersky
Nkirbit (2): Sudgy, Theorel
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Twistedarcher (1): XerxesPraelor

Not Voting (1): Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

I'm voting Robz.

I see your reasons for voting nkirbit and almost voted him (it's better than most things at this point), but, I'm keeping my vote on Robz until he answers my question.

Sudgy: How bout you answer my question first...

Sorry, I wrote up a post and said to post it but my internet connection died and it didn't get posted.  When nothing was happening, I just quickly thought if there was anything.  I didn't remember anything, so I tried RVS.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 14, 2013, 07:48:07 pm
This question specifically: Why would you think the votes on TA were RVS? What made you think that? What made you say that?

for reference...

I thought the wagon on TA was still RVS too...

why would you think this?

my vote:

I just think that a vig should make this decision for themselves. They would have more information, and would be able to make a more informed decision.

Still scummy.

To clarify, they don't have more information, and I do agree with anti-vig folks that the risk/reward scenario generally favors anti-town folks, so scum will make arguments like TA's to not discourage while not encouraging Vigs.

is something of a sheep of ashersky's explanation. My vote is obviously not a joke and ash's analysis is very serious in tone

vote: ta

ash's vote:
Ok, we are talking about different things here. I am talking about the Vig individually having more knowledge of the setup, while you are talking about all of us having more knowledge (ie on the existence of a SK). I agree that your plan will let us know the existence of a SK, but I honestly think we will know that sooner or later. There's also the possibilities of a kill getting blocked, doctored, etc., so we wouldn't know for certain, so the plan isn't good.

Odds are, there won't be a vig shot, given the community census about N1 vig shots. But I don't think we should completely take that option away from the vig. The vig will know better on whether or not he should shoot N1 than we will, especially this early in the day.

But why would set-up knowledge help th vig when he's deciding who to kill?  That's the fallacy of your argument, and continuing to push it is scummy.

vote: TA if I wasn't already.


ash's vote here is obviously not RVS either, it continues on the line of thought that he had previously (mentioned above) and is of a serious nature...

neither are RVS at all....

I still don't like Robz's stance on ashersky. But I think I am more inclined to vote for sudgy. vote: sudgy Theorel, this is a real wagon, sometimes you can get a wagon on someone pretty early in a game. Winterspartan in Samuri's and Ninjas for example...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 14, 2013, 07:52:38 pm
When nothing was happening, I just quickly thought if there was anything.  I didn't remember anything, so I tried RVS.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 07:53:15 pm
Well, an official vote count would be best.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 07:53:34 pm
Well, an official vote count would be best.

But I will say, I based my vote count on the last official one, which may be wrong.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 14, 2013, 07:57:11 pm
When nothing was happening, I just quickly thought if there was anything.  I didn't remember anything, so I tried RVS.

that doesn't answer my question, or I am completely not understanding what you are saying here. In fact I really have no idea what you are saying here to begin with.

I am not talking about your trying RVSing yourself. I am asking why you thought my vote on TA and ash's vote on TA were RVS when they clearly weren't.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 08:11:24 pm
My scum philosophy it to act like town, even when it hurts.

This quote is basically why I'm voting Sudgy right now.

He said that "early wagons are for interactions". (#257) It sounds pro-town at first glance, but digging deeper, I don't think it is at all.

What's good are real interactions. Looking at why person X voted person Y, and their reasons for voting. What's bad is fake interactions, where someone can say "Oh, I just voted this person to get a wagon going". This kind of vote actually takes away from wagon analysis and interactions, because it's a built-in excuse for why someone joined in a wagon. It's tough to analyze someone who says "I joined this wagon to get an interaction going".

Sudgy also made the bolded stance of "ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS". (#140) This is something that once again, is an easy pro-town stance.

Finally, he voted Ash to see the reactions to his vote. (#257) He notes that this is something that Ashersky has done in the past to get reactions, and he was trying to imitate that play. He also makes sure to point this out to us when first asked. However, there have been no analysis of the reactions to his Ash vote. However, Sudgy made sure to explain exactly what he was doing.

Overall, I think Sudgy has been trying so far to act especially towny. As he said himself, that's exactly what he would try to do as scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 08:12:37 pm
Just so you guys know, I wasn't even thinking of trying to play like ash.

Oh really. But you said:

My ash vote was still RVS, I was just trying to make it look like it wasn't to get reactions.  That's how ash always plays.  And I was trying to get RVS going because we were kind of done talking theory and nothing else was going on.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 08:27:47 pm
vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 08:32:04 pm
Back to vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 08:32:23 pm
Is that 4 or 5 on sudgy?

We have me, nkirbit, TA, yuma...anyone else?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 14, 2013, 08:33:04 pm
When nothing was happening, I just quickly thought if there was anything.  I didn't remember anything, so I tried RVS.

that doesn't answer my question, or I am completely not understanding what you are saying here. In fact I really have no idea what you are saying here to begin with.

I am not talking about your trying RVSing yourself. I am asking why you thought my vote on TA and ash's vote on TA were RVS when they clearly weren't.

It perfectly answered what you said.  I just quickly thought of anything in the game that I could remember, didn't think of anything, and RVSed.  I didn't think about specific cases, like TA.

My scum philosophy it to act like town, even when it hurts.

This quote is basically why I'm voting Sudgy right now.

He said that "early wagons are for interactions". (#257) It sounds pro-town at first glance, but digging deeper, I don't think it is at all.

What's good are real interactions. Looking at why person X voted person Y, and their reasons for voting. What's bad is fake interactions, where someone can say "Oh, I just voted this person to get a wagon going". This kind of vote actually takes away from wagon analysis and interactions, because it's a built-in excuse for why someone joined in a wagon. It's tough to analyze someone who says "I joined this wagon to get an interaction going".

Sudgy also made the bolded stance of "ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS". (#140) This is something that once again, is an easy pro-town stance.

Finally, he voted Ash to see the reactions to his vote. (#257) He notes that this is something that Ashersky has done in the past to get reactions, and he was trying to imitate that play. He also makes sure to point this out to us when first asked. However, there have been no analysis of the reactions to his Ash vote. However, Sudgy made sure to explain exactly what he was doing.

Overall, I think Sudgy has been trying so far to act especially towny. As he said himself, that's exactly what he would try to do as scum.

I haven't been trying to be towny, I'm just being me.

Just so you guys know, I wasn't even thinking of trying to play like ash.

Oh really. But you said:

My ash vote was still RVS, I was just trying to make it look like it wasn't to get reactions.  That's how ash always plays.  And I was trying to get RVS going because we were kind of done talking theory and nothing else was going on.



When I said "That's how ash always plays" I was saying, "I wouldn't vote ash over what he did since he always does that."

vote: sudgy

And can you explain this?

PPE: And ash too.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 08:33:20 pm
Are the votes you guys sheeping my case, or what?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 08:33:53 pm
TA, I voted for Sudgy before you.

In fact, I think I was the first one to vote for sudgy and make the case that he was doing scummy things.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 08:34:27 pm
Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 08:35:30 pm
Nope, I was wrong, I guess I was talking about someone else, or some other game.

I voted sudgy for trying to pull an ash.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 08:35:30 pm
TA, I voted for Sudgy before you.

In fact, I think I was the first one to vote for sudgy and make the case that he was doing scummy things.

Nope, early game it was Me, Yuma, you. But do you agree with my points is what I'm asking, do you?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 08:36:02 pm
Crazy. Exact same time stamp. I didn't even get a PPE for your post, either. Weird.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 08:36:38 pm
TA, I voted for Sudgy before you.

In fact, I think I was the first one to vote for sudgy and make the case that he was doing scummy things.

Nope, early game it was Me, Yuma, you. But do you agree with my points is what I'm asking, do you?

Oh, I mean yes, I agree with points against sudgy brought up by everyone.  The points are there.

I think it was sudgy realizing his own meta, changing it in a crazy way on purpose, and being caught.  Good scum try, but didn't work out.


Crazy. Exact same time stamp. I didn't even get a PPE for your post, either. Weird.

I did not either.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 14, 2013, 08:51:13 pm
Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 08:55:06 pm
Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

This sounds like scum talking.  So very unlike normal town sudgy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 08:55:42 pm
Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

I'm happy to add this post to the case.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 14, 2013, 08:57:46 pm
By the way, TA is either bussing or town.

I know I had a scum read earlier, but recent posts have me changing my read no him to this.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 14, 2013, 10:18:52 pm
@Voltaire: it was me that stated this was false.   Here it is again, because it's still false...this is never a safe claim for ash to make.  I'm a bit wary, because his tracker claim in Mean Girls wasn't safe either, right?  Someone in that game can confirm, but I think he would have been outed even if mcmc hadn't flipped jailkeeper?  I wouldn't put it past ash to make really out there claims as scum, but I'd expect him to get himself lynched relatively early in that case.

Multiple people have made posts like this, but I want to re-iterate that this is simply untrue.

If Ashersky were on a mafia team of two members, he knows, 100% of the time, there is no 1-shot doctor in the game.  This is because there would be at least 5 T's in the game, leaving only two town PR rolls.  One of them was an "M" to make Galzria an IC.  There's only one more letter, which isn't enough to make a potential 1-shot doctor who would counterclaim Ashersky.

I bring this up again because people seem to be considering Ash's claim as 100% town, or at least a dangerous claim for scum to make.  In certain cases, it is a perfectly safe claim to make, and I think everyone should keep that in mind.

I don't think we should at all lynch Ash today, but I think everyone is giving him far too much town credit for his claim.

The only way this happens is if there is a SK, something scum-ash would not know.  If the game goes to 6 (or 5) players with no scum lynched (and no SK), and we're still playing, guess what...ash lied!  It's guaranteed at that point.  Because we will know at some point before the game ends whether there are 3 or 2 scum.  Therefore in 50% of cases he's found out.

That means that at best ash has a 50% chance of being unprovable.  And even then it requires that the SK stays alive until lylo, so that it is feasible that the game is still going on because the SK is alive.  It gets him to lylo, not past.  A claim which is only good until lylo is a bad claim.  A very very bad claim.  Because if it goes to 2v1, and the 1 is ash, town wins (because we'd expect not to be in lylo at that point, we would expect to have ALREADY LOST).

I think there is absolutely no reason to expect a scum-team of size 2.  If ash is lying and scum, the scum-team is 3 people.  If ash is telling the truth and town, the scum-team is 3 people.  That's it, that's all the possibilities.

Okay, I need to look back over this sudgy thing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 14, 2013, 10:47:34 pm
Okay, so here's the sudgy case (and defense) as far as I understand it:
1. sudgy non-RVS voted ash in the middle of his RVS.
DEFENSE: It was for reactions, he didn't really mean the case on ash.
1.a. That doesn't really make sense, because he didn't search out reactions.  Also (added by me) he jumped straight back into RVS when he got the reactions (which was votes on him).  He never pursued any results on his reactions for his bad case.

2. sudgy was trying to be like ash, but said he wasn't.
DEFENSE: misunderstood.  He meant that he didn't mean the case.  (This is sufficiently reasonable to my mind)

3. sudgy disrupted the transition out of RVS with more RVS.  (i.e. the TA votes at this time were non-RVS).
DEFENSE: He did not realize the TA votes were non-RVS.  By which he meant, he just thought back, didn't remember any non-RVS stuff, and went ahead and voted.  (This seems fair to me again, because I didn't remember them myself.  The sudgy-wagon is the first non-RVS activity that I remember...that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it wasn't memorable).

4. sudgy is trying to act towny, which is what he would do as scum.  (this is TA's case I think?  This is ridiculous to me, that's also presumably what he'd do as town.  He's pointing out pro-town things, which he has stated is what he would do as town or scum.  This isn't a case, basically at all).
DEFENSE: "sudgy isn't good at defending himself".  (Odd that this is the one he has trouble with.  I mean seriously, someone points out pro-town things and says, "looks scummy for being pro-town"...and that's when he starts having trouble defending himself?)

5. sudgy seems to be forcing a meta-change, which is usually scummy.
DEFENSE: none offered yet, he hasn't posted since the accusation.

1 seems strongest to me.  5 is potentially strong, though I don't have a good feel for sudgy's meta at this time to verify it.  4 is weird, and is what caused me confusion in this whole thing.  The case is super-weak, but he can't defend it.  It felt sooo weak to me, that I couldn't see how it was the basis for this renewed push on sudgy.  Maybe the renewed push has more to do with 2 and 3, and it took him so long to answer those points, that 4 just kind of slipped in?

I'm gonna sleep on this.  I'm going back and forth here.  I can see a slipping town becoming persecuted...I can also see a scum error becoming out-of-control situation.  I'm leaning slipping town, because it seems like it's happened so many times...

In other news, I don't get nkirbit's vote here.  It's a complete switch from everything here is null to a vote with no explanation. 
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 14, 2013, 10:54:45 pm
Theorel, Sudgy is making an effort to seem towny, but he's not making an effort to scumhunt. Several times already he has taken stances that offer nothing other than setting him on the "pro-town" side of an issue. It's not that he's doing pro-town actions (and he's not, his "creating interactions" is not actually pro-town), but that I feel he's making a concerted effort to appear pro-town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 14, 2013, 11:04:58 pm
If the scum-team was me/yuma/Robz, it kills your "2-man scum team ashersky awesome fakeclaim" theory.

Also, we would win.

I forgot I was playing with the MAFIA GOD.

I willing to vote sudgy but don't want to right now since there seems to be confusion about where the votes are. I find the consensus case against him compelling.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 11:21:16 pm
I find Sudgy contradicting what he said earlier to be scummy.

Theorel, I don't understand what you're talking about with regards to the SK.  If Ash is on a scumteam of two, he knows, 100%, that 1-shot doctor is a fake claim.  Whether or not there is a SK.  Every single time.  Give me a setup that has a two man scum-team that has a one-shot doctor in it and I'll be forced to admit I have absolutely no clue how this set up works, but as far as I can tell, there is no such setup.

I'm not saying that Ash is scum.  I don't think he is.  But he's far from an IC.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 14, 2013, 11:21:53 pm
If the scum-team was me/yuma/Robz, it kills your "2-man scum team ashersky awesome fakeclaim" theory.

Also, we would win.

I forgot I was playing with the MAFIA GOD.

I willing to vote sudgy but don't want to right now since there seems to be confusion about where the votes are. I find the consensus case against him compelling.

vote count

this is from scratch so it should be right.

Robz (2): sudgy, chairs
ashersky (1): Robz
chairs (1): voltaire
theorel (1): mail-mi
TA (1): xerses
sudgy (4): TA, yuma, nkirbit, ashersky
nkirbit (1): theorel
xerses (1): Eevee

But yes, an official vote count would be handy. mcmc in checking back there were a handful of vote counting errors in some of the vote counts to let you know...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 11:22:22 pm
I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 11:23:50 pm
I went with TA's interpretation but I now see that's wrong.  Unvote to reconsider.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 14, 2013, 11:28:15 pm
Back to Vote: Voltaire
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 15, 2013, 12:00:54 am
Unvote. probably best to remove my RVS vote.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 12:40:54 am
My playstyle changes with every game, depending on various external factors (how busy I am being something big).  Look at other games, when I'm town and scum, and I play a bit different each time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 12:45:33 am
And I don't have a defense for "trying to act towny".  There are some actions I do where I think, "I don't care if this looks scummy, I think I should do it anyway!" and other times where I think, "Oh, this looks scummy, I shouldn't do it."  (It depends on what it is).  I worry about being seen scummy (the times I don't care are times that I think it still benefits).  Countless other games I have mentioned that, and I always get lynched for it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 01:10:04 am
I forgot I was playing with the MAFIA GOD.

Never forget, Voltaire.  Never.  Forget.

Also, if you and I were on a team, we would also always win.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 15, 2013, 03:23:26 am
Okay, since this is going nowhere, I'll vote for robz.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 15, 2013, 06:40:39 am
I think Sudgy's innocent because he was pointing out correct flaws in Ash's analysis, so who should I vote for?

I would vote for Ashersky, but in case he's good, it would be too great of a loss because of all the talking and reasoning he's doing. I guess I'll vote for someone on his side who doesn't talk much, then.
Vote: Twistedarcher
What were the correct flaws sudgy was pointing out in ash's analysis, and why did pointing them out make you think he is innocent?

Why do you think Ash and TA are "on the same side" (what do you mean by that?). As far as I can see, ashersky made a point of voting TA a couple of times, lumping them together seems weird to me.

And finally, TA doesn't talk much? He has 21 posts to your 6, as far as I can see only ashersky has posted more than he has.

This was the last post xerxes made. I know it's starting to be outdated, but it's not exactly my fault xerxes made a post I deemed scummy and tried to dodge the questions I had about it. Fwiw, he has been active elsewhere on the forums. Xerxes, why weren't these worth answering?

The sudgy case looks pretty good to me, theorel I disagree this is lynching someone for blundering as town. Scum makes more of a conscious effort to seem towny instead of just trying to advance town's agenda, and sudgy's play seems to match that.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 15, 2013, 08:26:22 am
I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.
Ash cannot be counter-claimed (in this scenario), I agree with you.  This does not magically make 1-shot doc a "safe" claim.

The only way 1-shot doc exists is if there are 3 scum.  So, once we realize there aren't 3 scum, ash is lynched.

A claim which results in you probably getting lynched is not a safe claim.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 15, 2013, 08:28:35 am
Okay, since this is going nowhere, I'll vote for robz.

If you want to vote, you need to use the bold Vote: Playername syntax.

Also, why?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 15, 2013, 08:35:10 am
I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.
Ash cannot be counter-claimed (in this scenario), I agree with you.  This does not magically make 1-shot doc a "safe" claim.

The only way 1-shot doc exists is if there are 3 scum.  So, once we realize there aren't 3 scum, ash is lynched.

A claim which results in you probably getting lynched is not a safe claim.
...the whole SK thing, was just being explicit about when it might happen that there are only 2 scum and we don't know it.  if no SK then we go to 5 players (3 with a scum lynch) and say "hey, there aren't 3 scum, ash is lying lynch him!".  This is the "probably getting lynched" if that wasn't clear.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 15, 2013, 08:55:28 am
Okay, so it appears that the actual case on sudgy (outside the misunderstanding-contradiction) is that he's making "pro-town statements" while not having "pro-town play".  I can see that.

The wagon though, has to do with him blundering, regardless of his alignment.  He's under the spot-light without town contributions to point to.  There are other players without town contributions to point to (Robz for instance).  I'm not so sure about anything chairs or Voltaire or mail-mi have contributed to scumhunting. either.  So, it's not like sudgy is the only player not to be doing any scum-hunting.  He just happens to be the one in focus.

Arguably, he's being at least a little active while doing that...that's why he's in the spot-light.  But at this point he's pure defense, which is what happens when town gets persecuted (also when scum gets persecuted).  So, I do believe that he's being attacked for blundering into the spotlight.  Whether he's done so as town or scum is uncertain.  Personally, I'm inclined to view him as a little scummy, but not worth any immediate action.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 15, 2013, 09:05:22 am
@nkirbit: your argument against Voltaire doesn't make sense.  He says that ash's claim is one that is "guaranteed to get him found out" and you jumped from there to "Voltaire knows there's a 3-man scum team".

I think neither of you 100% understand the situation.  But in particular, the 3-man case is precisely the one that isn't guaranteed to get him found out.  So, the argument against Voltaire only makes sense if Voltaire knows there's a 2-man scum team AND he's the other member!

Here are all possibilities:  (Note: I numbered them to correspond with scum-count, there's no "Case 1")

2-man scum team: ash is eventually found out because we get to lylo against 2 scum, and recognize that there are only 2 scum.  (Case 2)

3-man scum team: (Case 3)
a. other 1-shot doc: ash is found out and counter-claimed immediately.
b. no doc: ash is found out during a mass-claim.
c. other doc, no 1-shot doc.  Ash is never found out.

So, Voltaire's comment only makes sense if he is only considering case 2 and case 3b.  In the other cases, ash isn't "eventually" found out.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 15, 2013, 09:57:08 am
I think Sudgy's innocent because he was pointing out correct flaws in Ash's analysis, so who should I vote for?

I would vote for Ashersky, but in case he's good, it would be too great of a loss because of all the talking and reasoning he's doing. I guess I'll vote for someone on his side who doesn't talk much, then.
Vote: Twistedarcher
What were the correct flaws sudgy was pointing out in ash's analysis, and why did pointing them out make you think he is innocent?

Why do you think Ash and TA are "on the same side" (what do you mean by that?). As far as I can see, ashersky made a point of voting TA a couple of times, lumping them together seems weird to me.

And finally, TA doesn't talk much? He has 21 posts to your 6, as far as I can see only ashersky has posted more than he has.

This was the last post xerxes made. I know it's starting to be outdated, but it's not exactly my fault xerxes made a post I deemed scummy and tried to dodge the questions I had about it. Fwiw, he has been active elsewhere on the forums. Xerxes, why weren't these worth answering?

The sudgy case looks pretty good to me, theorel I disagree this is lynching someone for blundering as town. Scum makes more of a conscious effort to seem towny instead of just trying to advance town's agenda, and sudgy's play seems to match that.

I didn't answer because you were right and it's annoying to admit that to someone who voted to lynch you. I went back and checked the records, and I guess it was someone else (I can't see anything Sudgy said that fits that). (yuma, actually) I voted for ta because since I saw yuma, who I thought was innocent argue against him as well. Real life mafia makes it much easier to make a decision. I voted for robz just now because if a random kill helps the town, then I should vote for someone at least so that we end up with a kill, even if I can't see any particular thing he did that's suspicious.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 15, 2013, 10:35:51 am
Also, if you and I were on a team, we would also always win.

I look forward to it.  :)

Xerxes's most recent post gives me a town read on him. This is now other experienced RL mafia players tend to adjust to the forum-based game, even if some of the specifics don't transfer (saying "I'm voting someone just so we have a lynch") etc.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 10:48:57 am
Also, if you and I were on a team, we would also always win.

I look forward to it.  :)

Xerxes's most recent post gives me a town read on him. This is now other experienced RL mafia players tend to adjust to the forum-based game, even if some of the specifics don't transfer (saying "I'm voting someone just so we have a lynch") etc.

i agree. if you are going to do the who is off the table list thing you do, xerses should be off I think. I don't want to lynch new players day1 (unless specifically in a newbie game)... for a couple of reasons. 1. it is lame 2. new players don't have a meta, obviously, so a newbie lynch is basically a random lynch as we have so little to compare them to 3. later days are better for finding new mafia... se me in MIII and MV. I played great the first few days, but as we got closer to the end game I made critical mistakes as the game became more complex and I didn't have the experience necessary to get me out of situations and was found out 4. there are much better options among our vets.

That said, if something is horribly, blatantly obvious, I will vote for him. And at the same time xerses shouldn't feel safe and secure and not participate today because he isn't getting lynched, because if he does that it will put the spot light on him in later days.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 15, 2013, 10:57:34 am
POST COUNT (no pre-game, because today is a slow day at work)
48 Ashersky
41 Yuma
28 Twistedarcher
28 Sudgy
24 Theorel
23 Voltaire
18 Nkirbit
10 Eevee
10 Chairs
 9 Mail-Mi
 8 Galzria
 8 Robz888
 6 Xerses
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 15, 2013, 11:00:37 am
Is there something I don't get about xerxes-xerses, or is it just a typo by the mod that has propagated?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 11:04:12 am
Is there something I don't get about xerxes-xerses, or is it just a typo by the mod that has propagated?

generally me trying to type with one hand while holding baby... sorry X!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 15, 2013, 11:15:39 am
if you are going to do the who is off the table list thing you do, xerses should be off I think.

Indeed I am going to do my "off table." I've found it to actually work better than any previous system.  :)

That said, this game has been rather quiet (I have contributed to that, I am usually a top poster). I don't have many off-table candidates yet.

For those not familiar with the system, it's more-or-less 1. take the mega posters off the table. If they're scum, they'll leave a trail of evidence in their wake for later days (here, that's ash and yuma) 2. take anyone off the table who will have more known about their alignment on later days via interaction or whatever (here, I say that's ash via his claim, though theorel has now pointed out where there is a scenario where it is a claim that will not catch him out. Also ash has shown willingness to go down as scum for his team, so that's something to watch out for - what does he do with his "bought" days if we give them to him?) 3. take yourself off the list (unless you're a Jester (http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Jester) I guess)

So, based on the post count I listed, my lynch pool is

48 Ashersky
41 Yuma
28 Twistedarcher
28 Sudgy
24 Theorel
23 Voltaire
18 Nkirbit
10 Eevee
10 Chairs
 9 Mail-Mi
 8 Galzria
 8 Robz888
 6 Xerses

Then, from within this pool, I tend to scumhunt more-or-less normally. Xerxes is a town read, I don't want to lynch him today right now. I'm working on a full re-read (want to take stock of sudgy situation and give closer scrutiny to our lurkers. There are lots of them. This is very very very bad)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 15, 2013, 12:00:06 pm
I guess I should say show me a set-up that has a two man scumteam, a 1-shot doctor, and an innocent child.  The IC existing is key.
Ash cannot be counter-claimed (in this scenario), I agree with you.  This does not magically make 1-shot doc a "safe" claim.

The only way 1-shot doc exists is if there are 3 scum.  So, once we realize there aren't 3 scum, ash is lynched.

A claim which results in you probably getting lynched is not a safe claim.

... Except it IS a safe claim in this scenario, because there are only two scum. So the moment you realize there are three (when two are dead), would already be too late for scum!Ash.

Basically, if there's only two scum, then claiming one shot doctor is probably the right claim. You're already at a hell of a disadvantage starting the game, and the claim has the potential to cause maximum havoc. If both you and your partner die (the point most games would conclude there's three scum), the game is over. So you claim OSD, something that can't be counter-claimed, isn't provable, isn't multi-use, and skews the entire thinking of the town in trying to solve the setup.

I'm not saying that is the case here, but it's certainly a reasonable consideration.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 15, 2013, 12:30:05 pm
Vote Count 1.4:

Chairs (1): Voltaire
Sudgy (3): Twistedarcher, Yuma, Ashersky
Twistedarcher (1): XerxesPraelor
Ashersky (1): Robz888
Robz888 (2): Sudgy, Chairs
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Nkirbit (1): Theorel
Voltaire (1): Nkirbit

Not Voting (2): Galzria, mail-mi

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.


(this vote count is now correct and ordered wagons top down and vote cast left right. Plan on more frequent and correct vote counts now)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 12:45:21 pm
Thinking back on things, some people are saying, "Sudgy says that he tries to play as town as scum, and he's trying to do towny things, so he must be scum."  This is wrong on several levels.  First, while I try to play as my town self as scum, I do not try to act towny except when I would as town.  Acting like town != being towny.  Also, me doing towny things doesn't automatically mean I'm scum, I still could be town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 15, 2013, 01:26:47 pm
I'm not sure I follow your logic, sudgy - are you trying to say that town!sudgy and scum!sudgy play the same during the Day?

Because to be honest that's exactly what I'd expect scum!sudgy to say.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 01:41:11 pm
I'm not sure I follow your logic, sudgy - are you trying to say that town!sudgy and scum!sudgy play the same during the Day?

Because to be honest that's exactly what I'd expect scum!sudgy to say.

I have said it countless times as town.  And it's more that I'm saying that scum!sudgy tries to play like town!sudgy as much as possible.  I can't be perfect, and it's those little things that will help you catch me as scum (unfortunately, you guys seem to always catch me for the wrong things as town).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 15, 2013, 01:49:01 pm
Okay, since I messed up in my previous post and it looks like more people are voting for sudgy than robz, Vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 01:52:11 pm
Okay, since I messed up in my previous post and it looks like more people are voting for sudgy than robz, Vote: sudgy

What are your reasons?

I'm more trying to help you get good at how mafia works on forums.  Irl, you just randomly vote people pretty much, but online, you need to have good reasons to vote people (there are exceptions, like RVS (Random Voting Stage)).  "Sheeping", voting people because others are, is usually seen to be scummy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 01:54:17 pm
Okay, since I messed up in my previous post and it looks like more people are voting for sudgy than robz, Vote: sudgy

What are your reasons?

I'm more trying to help you get good at how mafia works on forums.  Irl, you just randomly vote people pretty much, but online, you need to have good reasons to vote people (there are exceptions, like RVS (Random Voting Stage)).  "Sheeping", voting people because others are, is usually seen to be scummy.

Hey sudgy, I know you are super busy trying to defend yourself... but what are your reads atm. Honestly I think that is going to tell us a lot more about you than these arguments around your defense (not that you shouldn't argue your defense, but that shouldn't be all you are doing, nor should we expect you to only be doing that). So what are you reads at this point. Were any of your votes real that you cast before, or were they all RVS?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 02:48:46 pm
Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

two very scummy statements
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 02:53:37 pm
Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

two very scummy statements

Can people say why they're scummy?  My first one is worded that way because of how the original sentence was worded.

And, yuma, for your earlier post, my Robz vote was not RVS.  I will continue voting him until he explains why he voted ash when his claim made sense.

Other than that, I sadly haven't really gotten any solid reads, everybody's just playing as I would expect them to.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 15, 2013, 03:08:50 pm
And, yuma, for your earlier post, my Robz vote was not RVS.  I will continue voting him until he explains why he voted ash when his claim made sense.

It was just a "silly" vote.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 15, 2013, 03:12:07 pm
I'm caught up! Things that suck out to me:

-- sudgy is a fine lynch candidate.I find his statements and weird vote jumping quite scummy. We'll be cool to analyze how his wagon built after flip.

Other stuff... statements like this:

Unvote. probably best to remove my RVS vote.

Always mega scummy to me. They just stick out so much. LET ME TAKE YOU THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION. I get a scum read from mail-mi off this.

Also, Voltaire:

I lean theorel, Voltaire, nkirbit as scum, based on ridiculous statements, clear fear at what I'm laying out for town, and focusing on the unimportant bits and trying to hide everything under emotional complaints.

I haven't read ash's post yet, but this is exactly what I was expecting. Anyone who doesn't get what ash is doing, or responds with skepticism, is automatically scum in his mind. I debated posting my reply in the first place because I knew only one reaction was guaranteed: ash would find me scummy.

SO what? Let him find you scummy. Who cares? That wouldn't stop a member of the town from speaking his mind.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 15, 2013, 03:20:49 pm
Also, Voltaire:

I lean theorel, Voltaire, nkirbit as scum, based on ridiculous statements, clear fear at what I'm laying out for town, and focusing on the unimportant bits and trying to hide everything under emotional complaints.

I haven't read ash's post yet, but this is exactly what I was expecting. Anyone who doesn't get what ash is doing, or responds with skepticism, is automatically scum in his mind. I debated posting my reply in the first place because I knew only one reaction was guaranteed: ash would find me scummy.

SO what? Let him find you scummy. Who cares? That wouldn't stop a member of the town from speaking his mind.

Because in the past it has ended up being a huge distraction. And honestly, because I am getting tired of being under suspicion D1 (the jury is out on whether or not town suspecting town!Volt on D1 ultimately helps town win, as there aren't enough completed games in the dataset yet).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 15, 2013, 03:21:35 pm
Because in the past it has ended up being a huge distraction. And honestly, because I am getting tired of being under suspicion D1 (the jury is out on whether or not town suspecting town!Volt on D1 ultimately helps town win, as there aren't enough completed games in the dataset yet).

Also worth nothing, Robz: I made my post anyway.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 03:23:06 pm
And, yuma, for your earlier post, my Robz vote was not RVS.  I will continue voting him until he explains why he voted ash when his claim made sense.

It was just a "silly" vote.

Unvote, that makes sense.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 15, 2013, 03:25:10 pm
Because in the past it has ended up being a huge distraction. And honestly, because I am getting tired of being under suspicion D1 (the jury is out on whether or not town suspecting town!Volt on D1 ultimately helps town win, as there aren't enough completed games in the dataset yet).

Sorry man. People get suspected. That's how the game goes. I don't even think you are like the most suspected Day 1 person ever by a longshot.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 15, 2013, 03:28:46 pm
Because in the past it has ended up being a huge distraction. And honestly, because I am getting tired of being under suspicion D1 (the jury is out on whether or not town suspecting town!Volt on D1 ultimately helps town win, as there aren't enough completed games in the dataset yet).

Sorry man. People get suspected. That's how the game goes. I don't even think you are like the most suspected Day 1 person ever by a longshot.

Not saying I am. Just telling you how I feel, in answer to your statements.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 03:36:29 pm
The #1 wonder in the universe: Why am I the only one who gets suspicious for playing like myself?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 15, 2013, 03:40:58 pm
The #1 wonder in the universe: Why am I the only one who gets suspicious for playing like myself?

You aren't.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 15, 2013, 03:41:51 pm
You aren't the only one, I should say.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 03:53:28 pm
I know, I'm more thinking of how everybody just thinks, "Oh, that's how [insert name here] always plays."  But it doesn't happen to me...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 15, 2013, 04:08:23 pm
Because in the past it has ended up being a huge distraction. And honestly, because I am getting tired of being under suspicion D1 (the jury is out on whether or not town suspecting town!Volt on D1 ultimately helps town win, as there aren't enough completed games in the dataset yet).

Sorry man. People get suspected. That's how the game goes. I don't even think you are like the most suspected Day 1 person ever by a longshot.

I personally always suggest Robz and yuma D1.

(It's always Robz and yuma).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 15, 2013, 04:08:35 pm
*suspect
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 15, 2013, 04:16:30 pm
I always suspect mail-mi and Archetype on Day 1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 15, 2013, 04:28:14 pm
C9++ Known:

M-xxxxxx

Claimed:

M-DD-xxxx

Situations:

#1 Ashersky is lying.
#2 Ashersky is telling the truth

#1.a) If Ashersky is lying and there are only two Mafia, then the rolls are either M-TTTTT-x, or M-TTTTTT. In this case Ashersky knows for a fact that 1-shot Doctor does not exist in this game, so he can't be counter-claimed. However, he doesn't know if there are 5T's or 6T's in the setup. If we massclaim, and somebody claims {Roleblocker, 1-Shot Vigilante, 1-Shot Cop}, then he's hosed. If no other claim is forthcoming, Ashersky's partner could claim Doctor, fulfilling the DD setup. In this situation, we're likely dealing with 6T's (nobody claimed the extra x), which means no SK. The problem with this, is that they simply can't justify staying alive together. Not for the entire game. The only night kill would belong to scum, and it would have to consistently land elsewhere.

The other possible outcome to the above is that somebody claims Doctor. This leaves Ashersky's partner in the clear, and tells scum that the setup is MTTTTTD. This also tells scum that there is a SK in existence. This isn't terrible for scum, as they can shoot the Doctor N1 unhindered, and then justify Ashersky's not dying due to the fact that he's essentially a VT after the first night (he can claim to have Doctored me, instead of the Doctor, or have been Roleblocked, or whatever). This works because under the belief that Ashersky is what he claims, we town can believe that the setup exists as MTTTTDD. At that point the only situation that Ashersky gets caught, is if the SK shoots him, or we lynch him. In this situation, Ashersky is the Godfather on the team, and there's a Goon floating around (this doesn't work the other way 'round, else when the Godfather is killed we know Ashersky is lying).

Long story short: If we mass-claim, and Ashersky is part of a 2 man scum team, his only hope of pulling this off is if there's a Doctor in the house. At that point we can only really rely on a SK to shoot him. If that doesn't happen, we'll need to lynch him over a VT claim, after everything else points to his being truthful (NOTE: If we get to lylo, we've killed 1 Goon and the SK, and Ashersky is still alive, then he's lying scum. Because in order for MTTTTDD to be true, there would need to be 3 scum, and we would be end-gamed. Assuming that hadn't happened, the only situation is that there were 2 scum, which means DD did not exist.)

#1.b) If Ashersky is lying and there are 3 Mafia, it's a little more tricky. Mafia don't know the difference between a 3T and 4T roll, nor do they know the difference between a 0T, 1T and 2T roll. This is tough, because if he's fake-claiming scum in the 0T-2T range, he runs the risk of being counter-claimed. However, he also gets a decent shot at there being a single Doctor in the setup, which would "verify" his claim. If he's fake-claiming scum in the 3T-4T range, he's not as likely to get counter-claimed, but the odds of there being a Doctor starts to dwindle (M-TTT-xxx at best, M-TTTT-xx at worst).

If Ashersky was fake-claiming, and we DID have a real DD setup, I would expect our other 1-SD to have come forward already. So I'm going to dismiss that as possible.

And... gah, so many distractions around me. I've lost my train of thought, and I've got to get to work.

I think I was headed towards:

I don't see Ashersky making the fake-claim from a Mafia position of 3T's/4T's. Because if the setup is M-TTTT-xx, there's only 2 unknown rolls that could "verify" his claim (by coming up D). If we massclaim and we have any 2 combination of {C, B, V} but no D, he's hosed. Likewise, if we turn up {CC, VV, BB, MMM (including mine)}, he's also hosed. The only protection against those is having an additional scum-buddy of his claim Doctor to try and throw the claims off. But then we're left with 4 claims (at most), where 2 are fake. Not a good scum winning formula. He could let it go and write himself off as dead scum in this situation (instead of dragging a scummate down with him), but this still seems like an unnecessary gamble on his part). Sure, maybe it favors scum and the roll was M-TTT-xxx, but Mafia can't know that prior to making the claim. So I don't see this as likely.

Which brings me to: If Ashersky is scum, we're likely in a 0T-2T situation, where there could be anywhere from 4 'x's to 6 'x's for a Doctor roll to occur to support him. It also maximizes the number of claims running around that "might be fake", giving him room to argue around and possibly get some PR's lynched. And what risk does he run? We rolled DD, and he gets counter-claimed. Well, he may still take out the real One-Shot Doctor first. And if he doesn't get counter-claimed (as is currently the case), well he can possibly get our entire PR set exposed, in addition to possibly getting us to lynch some first before coming around to him.

And again, long story short:

If Ashersky is scum, I expect the setup to be one of the following three: M-xxxxxx, M-T-xxxxx, M-TT-xxxx. Or in other words, we're looking at {Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather}, and a 33% of there being a SK.

That isn't set in stone by any means, but I do think that's most likely to be the case If Ashersky is lying scum.

I have to leave for work like, 5 minutes ago, so I'll continue this later on what I think if Ashersky is telling the truth. I'll also go over everything that I've seen and that's stood out to me thus far. By NO means, should conversation cease in the interm.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 04:29:07 pm
Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

two very scummy statements

Can people say why they're scummy?  My first one is worded that way because of how the original sentence was worded.

And, yuma, for your earlier post, my Robz vote was not RVS.  I will continue voting him until he explains why he voted ash when his claim made sense.

Other than that, I sadly haven't really gotten any solid reads, everybody's just playing as I would expect them to.

I don't need solid reads... I need any reads you have. It is day1. Reads aren't supposed to be super solid. My read on you is strong but is incredibly weak compared to any other d2+ read I have had...

So again, give us your reads. We are 2 days away from softdeadline... This lack of willingness to give reads or be involved in scum hunting in anyway other than silly rvs and a single vote on robz for other silly behavior should be added to the case.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 05:01:03 pm
in terms of where I stand with everyone else in the game doing a quick reread of everyone (not that hard with only 15 pages)



1. Eevee - was with a few of us on sudgy, but left it to go to xerxes? Not sure why he did... That move is a bit odd, but I dont' know if it was necessarily suspicious. Pretty null, but scum points for lurking
2. Robz888 - is starting to get into the game, so I guess I'll hold of judgement until he actually gets into the game. Robz is rarely a good day1 lynch anyways, so I am not too concerned with that. Benefit of the doubt town.
3. Ashersky - I am willing to believe his claim and thus not want to even consider lynching him. Town
4. Voltaire - Isn't being heavily suspected day1? He must be mafia! But really, he isn't jumping out to me in any specific way. In back to basics he was blatantly town (I ended up correctly doctoring him because of that obvious towniness, but I am not necessarily seeing that here) but neither am i seeing anything specifically scummy. Null
5. Yuma - Obviously town
6. Twistedarcher - an early, early suspect, but not as much anymore. he is with ash and I on sudgy, so I am more inclined to side with him just because of that automatically. Has been a little on the quiet side of late?
Kinda townie
7. Theorel - Hasn't done one of his % posts that he generally does mid-day1. Interesting to note. I don't know if I have ever seen scum theorel before. I have seen him as town a lot... He and I appear to have very different playstyles and scum hunting philosophies... I think that worked well in the last C9++ game where we both knew each other were town as masons... but here, since I don't know his alignment a different approach than mine because suspect just because it is different... So I am trying to keep that in mind, but I could potentially lynch theorel. Somewhat scummy
8. Sudgy - my biggest suspect, see other posts for why. Scummy
9. Mail-Mi - whole lot of nothing from mail-mi, but haven't seen what I would call mail-mi flags. I think I am pretty good at telling when he is scum. Not perfect, but pretty good. And I am not seeing anything right now. I do think it is interesting that no one is pressuring him though. Mail-mi is generally what I would call the "easy mislynch." Maybe mafia has learned that to suspect town mail-mi is to attract unwanted scrutiny from the likes of me and others... or maybe he just is mafia. Probably won't want to lynch today unless something specific occurs to make me think he is scummy.
10. Chairs - a spot I could lynch. Honestly I would put him in the same camp as eevee. Could lynch, but isn't my ideal lynch for the day.
11. Nkirbit - I got a town read from his on/off sudgy vote yesterday. That just seemed very townie to me in the way he voted, realized he was voting for a reason that he misunderstood and then left it. I think scum is more likely to stick with something until a more convienient time and then abandon ship, not to mention that mafia knows something isn't true because they would know who or who isn't mafia... Town
12. Xerses - new player, not on my lynch list for today for various reasons, see above
13. Galzria -  Innocent Child

So looks like my potential lynch pool for the day is: sudgy, theorel, eevee, chairs

Would need a convincing argument that I don't think can be made: twistedarcher, voltaire

everyone is more or less off the table at the moment, Galz, myself and ashersky are 100% off the table today as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 15, 2013, 05:42:34 pm
Eevee - Cuddly and fluffy, has not yet evolved into Mafiaon so we should keep him around. Null.
Robz - Despite my ashersky-busing-based vote, I do think Robz is generally a solid player to keep around through D1. null.
Ashersky - Not lynching today. Town.
Voltaire - I feel like the D1 suspicion grumping is scummy but it's not without basis, I looked and he does get the eyeball a lot on D1. null
Yuma - Obviously scum ^_~.  I think if yuma is Mafia then we'll sniff it out of him later. null for now.
TA - I think he's V/LA at the moment and so his lurking is excusable. null.
Theorel - Insufficient theory talk from Theorel.  Scum.
Sudgy - His discussion on how "scum!sudgy" plays like "town!sudgy" sounded forced the last time I heard it, and it sounds force d now.  Sudgy, you need a new meta, man.  Scummy.
Mail-mi - ...lurking?
Chairs - obvtown.  Would not lynch.
Nkirbit - yuma and I differ here, I get a slight scumread from the on/off vote.  Nothing major, but it sounds like a potential "for towncred" move.
Xerses - I'm in favor of seeing more interactions from newbies so we can catch them in future games based on their meta >:).
Galz - Obvscum (actually the IC).

Want to lynch - vote: Sudgy
Would lynch - Theorel, Nkirbit
Won't Lynch - Chairs, Xerses, Galzria, Ashersky
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 05:47:03 pm
Is that L-1 on sudgy?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 15, 2013, 05:47:48 pm
I agree with Nkirbit and Galzria's logic on Ashersky. If he's scum, it's a two-man scum team.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 05:47:59 pm
5 votes on sudgy, so L-2.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 05:49:40 pm
Would lynch:  sudgy, TA, Voltaire, Robz, mail-mi
Whatevs:  Theorel, Eevee, chairs, Xerxes, nkirbit
Nope:  ash, yuma, galz
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 15, 2013, 05:50:28 pm
I'm not sure I follow your logic, sudgy - are you trying to say that town!sudgy and scum!sudgy play the same during the Day?

Because to be honest that's exactly what I'd expect scum!sudgy to say.

I have said it countless times as town.  And it's more that I'm saying that scum!sudgy tries to play like town!sudgy as much as possible.  I can't be perfect, and it's those little things that will help you catch me as scum (unfortunately, you guys seem to always catch me for the wrong things as town).

Sudgy, the amount of self-awareness you have is what's making the case. You seem extremely aware of how you're playing, and extremely concerned with getting what seem to be pro-town opinions out there.

The point is that you seem more concerned with SEEMING pro-town than with actually BEING pro-town. You want to seem like you are on town's side, but you are doing very little to advance town's actually agenda (ie, find scum).

Every post you make is making me more confident that I'm correct.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 05:51:09 pm
Would lynch:  sudgy, TA, Voltaire, Robz, mail-mi
Whatevs:  Theorel, Eevee, chairs, Xerxes, nkirbit
Nope:  ash, yuma, galz

I'd note, if sudgy flips Town, TA moves to whatevs.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 05:52:36 pm
Vote Count yuma.2

Chairs (1): Voltaire
Sudgy (5): Twistedarcher, Yuma, Ashersky, xerxes, chairs
Ashersky (1): Robz888
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Nkirbit (1): Theorel
Voltaire (1): Nkirbit

Not Voting (3): Galzria, mail-mi, sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 15, 2013, 05:52:51 pm
Yuma, not that I find Robz particularly scummy or want to lynch him, but I disagree that Robz should get a pass D1 because he's not a good D1 lynch. There's enough active players here that, if I think Robz is scummy, I'm going to vote for him and not give him a pass because he's potentially a good town player. Everyone here is a good town player if they're town, and I don't know why Robz should get a D1 pass relative to everyone else.

Not that I think Robz is scummy, so this is more of a policy thing, but I don't agree with giving Robz specifically a D1 pass.

Only people I'm giving D1 passes to are Ash (the claim) and Xerxes (new, and I agree with the points others are making about him).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 15, 2013, 05:56:32 pm
Ashersky - Not lynching today. Town.

I want to focus on this read by Chairs. This is his only comment about Ashersky's claim in the thread. I, too, believe Ash to be town, but the amount of conviction Chairs has put behind it is unsettling to me.

If the claim is correct, scum KNOWS that Ash's claim is correct, and they also know that they are barking up the wrong tree by pushing Ashersky. So I'd imagine that they simply accept Ash's claim as true, without trying to fight it or even to analyze it.

Simply put, I think that Chairs is TOO confident in proclaiming Ashersky to be town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 05:57:02 pm
Yuma, not that I find Robz particularly scummy or want to lynch him, but I disagree that Robz should get a pass D1 because he's not a good D1 lynch. There's enough active players here that, if I think Robz is scummy, I'm going to vote for him and not give him a pass because he's potentially a good town player. Everyone here is a good town player if they're town, and I don't know why Robz should get a D1 pass relative to everyone else.

Not that I think Robz is scummy, so this is more of a policy thing, but I don't agree with giving Robz specifically a D1 pass.

Only people I'm giving D1 passes to are Ash (the claim) and Xerxes (new, and I agree with the points others are making about him).

I didn't mean Robz should always get a pass day1. but rather that he starts with a default of not scummy. he has to earn his scuminess (whereas other players generally have to earn their towniness), mostly because that is so hard for me to tell day1. if he is obvious scum he should be lynched, but he is very rarely obvious, hence why he is ver rarely a good day1 lynch...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 15, 2013, 06:01:46 pm
I understand, and I agree that I don't have much of a read on Robz this game. I guess I was combining what you were saying and views other people have put forth in other games (that several people are bad lynches D1 because they're good town players)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 06:04:29 pm
I understand, and I agree that I don't have much of a read on Robz this game. I guess I was combining what you were saying and views other people have put forth in other games (that several people are bad lynches D1 because they're good town players)

No, i disagree with that premise. a good town player is also a good scum player. lynch on behavior not on potential... i haven't always felt that way, but have arrived at it recently
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 15, 2013, 06:30:15 pm
Vote Count 1.5:

Chairs (1): Voltaire
Sudgy (5): Twistedarcher, Yuma, Ashersky, XerxesPraelor, Chairs
Ashersky (1): Robz888
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Nkirbit (1): Theorel
Voltaire (1): Nkirbit

Not Voting (2): Galzria, mail-mi, sudgy

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 06:56:19 pm
I'm not sure I follow your logic, sudgy - are you trying to say that town!sudgy and scum!sudgy play the same during the Day?

Because to be honest that's exactly what I'd expect scum!sudgy to say.

I have said it countless times as town.  And it's more that I'm saying that scum!sudgy tries to play like town!sudgy as much as possible.  I can't be perfect, and it's those little things that will help you catch me as scum (unfortunately, you guys seem to always catch me for the wrong things as town).

Sudgy, the amount of self-awareness you have is what's making the case. You seem extremely aware of how you're playing, and extremely concerned with getting what seem to be pro-town opinions out there.

The point is that you seem more concerned with SEEMING pro-town than with actually BEING pro-town. You want to seem like you are on town's side, but you are doing very little to advance town's actually agenda (ie, find scum).

Every post you make is making me more confident that I'm correct.

I'm mentioning these things because it's the case on me.  I don't care how I'm playing, I don't care if I'm seen pro-town or not, if you see me trying to be pro-town, you are flat out wrong.  I wouldn't be mentioning any of this stuff if it wasn't what people are talking about.

I'll get around to a full reads list (that will barely have anything) when I'm not as busy (so later tonight).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 15, 2013, 07:04:01 pm
I agree with Nkirbit and Galzria's logic on Ashersky. If he's scum, it's a two-man scum team.

You misread my conclusion. It's an extreme gambit if he's on a two man scum team. One that only works out if A) He's the Godfather, and B) our single additional roll was a D (MDTTTTT). And even here, it only works out if the SK doesn't shoot him. It's a whole lot of "if's" that combined are rather unlikely.

I think that if Ashersky is scum, it's far, far more likely that he's part of a scum team whose roll's came to 0T, 1T, or 2T. In this case he's likely a Goon, trying to inflict maximum damage on the town while willingly sacrificing himself for the long term. Even if it blows up in his face and we lynch him first, he's still aiming to get as many PR's exposed as possible.

But, I'm not convinced he's scum. I'm also not convinced he's scum. I need to finish walking through my numbers tonight, and see what the potential gain / loss of claiming or not gets us, vs just lynching him. It's possible he even makes this play as a Godfather, hoping to live through the night and draw an investigation. I still have a lot to consider.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 15, 2013, 07:05:25 pm
*-Also not convinced he's town-*
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 15, 2013, 07:57:21 pm
Ashersky - Not lynching today. Town.

I want to focus on this read by Chairs. This is his only comment about Ashersky's claim in the thread. I, too, believe Ash to be town, but the amount of conviction Chairs has put behind it is unsettling to me.

If the claim is correct, scum KNOWS that Ash's claim is correct, and they also know that they are barking up the wrong tree by pushing Ashersky. So I'd imagine that they simply accept Ash's claim as true, without trying to fight it or even to analyze it.

Simply put, I think that Chairs is TOO confident in proclaiming Ashersky to be town.
I don't. If he has a town read on ash, the doctor claim shouldsolidify that. Not scummy. TA pulling stuff from chairs to make him sound scummy <-- sxummy. Vote: ta
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 09:55:10 pm
Vote Count 1.5:

I do find it interesting that sudgy is the only wagon with more than one vote at this juncture in the game...

What does that mean?

At this point if sudgy is scum do his scumteammates buss? Not react to it and hope that someone else does something? Start another wagon in hopes of getting the lynch there? The latter isn't happening, so either avoiding doing anything or bussing.

If sudgy is town how do mafia react? Well they could already be on the wagon, but at this point the wagon is made up of town reads... and chairs... so I am leaning toward less likely that mafia was on the wagon early. Do they try to stay away from the wagon? Join it? (chairs? xerxes?) Support it but not vote there (voltaire, Robz?) Argue against it to get towncred?

I don't know if any of those is likely, but regardless of whether or not sudgy is scum and if he is going to be lynched or not, I am not a huge fan of how the votes are spread out... and I am not a fan of the lack of voting by some people (sudgy... mail-mi until recently, Galz I don't mind because he is IC and probably has a reason for not voting) and for the votes on people who are certainly not getting lynched today (eevee on xerxes, robz on ash)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 15, 2013, 09:57:58 pm
my thoughts on sudgy: He does seem scummier than normal sudgy, but not scummier enough to be a preferred lynch for me. I definitely could go for him, tho.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 15, 2013, 10:16:29 pm
Ashersky - Not lynching today. Town.

I want to focus on this read by Chairs. This is his only comment about Ashersky's claim in the thread. I, too, believe Ash to be town, but the amount of conviction Chairs has put behind it is unsettling to me.

If the claim is correct, scum KNOWS that Ash's claim is correct, and they also know that they are barking up the wrong tree by pushing Ashersky. So I'd imagine that they simply accept Ash's claim as true, without trying to fight it or even to analyze it.

Simply put, I think that Chairs is TOO confident in proclaiming Ashersky to be town.

...I'm not sure that I follow.  I didn't say "Ashersky is def town".  I said I have a town read on him.  I think you're putting too much weight into my read.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 10:28:20 pm
Ashersky - Not lynching today. Town.

I want to focus on this read by Chairs. This is his only comment about Ashersky's claim in the thread. I, too, believe Ash to be town, but the amount of conviction Chairs has put behind it is unsettling to me.

If the claim is correct, scum KNOWS that Ash's claim is correct, and they also know that they are barking up the wrong tree by pushing Ashersky. So I'd imagine that they simply accept Ash's claim as true, without trying to fight it or even to analyze it.

Simply put, I think that Chairs is TOO confident in proclaiming Ashersky to be town.

...I'm not sure that I follow.  I didn't say "Ashersky is def town".  I said I have a town read on him.  I think you're putting too much weight into my read.

TA's also wrong.  If chairs is mafia, he still doesn't know if I'm the SK or not.  If he's the SK, he doesn't know if I'm mafia or not.

So the normal "mafia think someone is town too quickly because they already know" scum tell doesn't work when there are multiple scum teams possible.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 15, 2013, 10:43:12 pm
This has been a bit of a weird game development-wise I think.  Only one serious wagon, and it's still just kind of hanging out there, up at L-2 now.  It's a case that's appealing to a lot of people, which means, of course, I don't see it.  I mean, I get the case (I think), but I don't understand why it's being just eaten up by everyone.

Anyways, everything seems to be sort of revolving around the sudgy wagon...this seems unhealthy to me for developing reads.  But, I haven't really tried to solidify anything, so let's see if I can:
(As mentioned, I think ash's claim makes 3 scum essentially certain.  So, 3/13 scum = base 23 scumScore)

sudgy: I see the arguments against him, but I don't feel like he's scummy enough to be getting this much support for his lynch.  At this point, I am getting a little suspicious of his wagon...It's a slow build, but nothing else seems to be going anywhere.  scumScore: 25

TwistedArcher: first voter on sudgy.  Vocal proponent of his wagon/lynch.  My gut says, scum doesn't usually do that.  But then I think back to Innovation, and the argument with spiritbears.  OTOH, he wasn't anywhere near the actual lynch (none of us were).  Meh, that leaves me a shade on the scummy-side of neutral.  scumScore: 24

yuma: second voter on sudgy.  He seems to be playing a less blinder-focused game (than TA), although he's definitely going in for the sudgy-lynch.  My memory of scum-yuma was him constantly bringing up partner Glooble as scummy.  He's leading town somewhat, and obviously invested in the game (presumably due to his drought of games).  I think you should be wary of yuma, especially if he has over-accurate reads.  (although he could play up that angle and lead a bunch of mislynches too).  I think I'm going to maintain a scum-read on yuma as I do with shraeye...just too hard to detect for me to feel safe with a town-read towards him.  scumScore: 25

ash: third voter on sudgy.  Huge gambit if he's scum.  scum-ash likes huge gambits.  He has also nicely set himself up to not self-vote, and play to a different meta due to his role.  Ash claiming makes me nervous, because he's not being typical (VT) ash.  But it's not necessarily scummy.  And his reaction to it, is what I would expect from town-ash.  It's just, scum-ash is good enough to fake it.  Bah, I dunno...I'll lean town for now.  scumScore: 20

Eevee: fourth vote on sudgy, abandoned for xerxes.  Kind of quiet, but that's sort of normal for Eevee these days.  Not much of a read here at all.  scumScore: 23

nkirbit: defended sudgy, voted him over contradiction, retracted after explanation.  Vote on Voltaire based on a lack of understanding about the possibilities regarding ash's fake-claim, which I'm still not sure he understands, but maybe Galzria's explanation will clarify it?  I don't think the vote-then-retract was entirely townie...it's just a thing, that either nkirbit would do, or scum-nkirbit felt town-nkirbit would do.  Pretty weak read here.  scumScore: 24

mail-mi: is he lurking as hard as he seems to be?  Voltaire had him in the bottom post-count.  I just feel like, town mail-mi always looked scummy, but my only interaction with scum mail-mi has been lurking mail-mi.  Is this really an invalid read (I think some spectators said it was?)  scumScore: 28

Xerxes: also lurking hard, but new.  I'd love to hear more from him, and hope to hear more as days go on.  null here.  scumScore: 23

Voltaire: this feels like town-voltaire to me.  Admittedly, I've never played with scum-Voltaire.  Probably once I've seen you all as scum and town, I'm just going to have no reads at all day1...but for now, I've got a town-read here.  scumScore: 18

Robz: He's been super-quiet, but might be actually getting into the game.  Cool, I was bummed that he basically never got into MXXX.  He seems the same so far as Robz did there (i.e. non-participatory).  scumScore: 23

chairs: I'm not sure how to read chairs.  Has he ever been scum?  I feel like his game-play is still developing, so it's hard to peg him down.  He posts infrequently.  His reads list is weird, half-joking.  I'm not fully sure I understand all of his reads, which is vaguely suspicious (because they're easy to back out of if they're hard to understand).  scumScore: 24

I'm going to vote: chairs.  Not sure if Voltaire still wants his vote there, but I'm willing to join him and see where things go.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 10:48:53 pm
This has been a bit of a weird game development-wise I think.  Only one serious wagon, and it's still just kind of hanging out there, up at L-2 now.  It's a case that's appealing to a lot of people, which means, of course, I don't see it.  I mean, I get the case (I think), but I don't understand why it's being just eaten up by everyone.

Anyways, everything seems to be sort of revolving around the sudgy wagon...this seems unhealthy to me for developing reads.  But, I haven't really tried to solidify anything, so let's see if I can:
(As mentioned, I think ash's claim makes 3 scum essentially certain.  So, 3/13 scum = base 23 scumScore)

sudgy: I see the arguments against him, but I don't feel like he's scummy enough to be getting this much support for his lynch.  At this point, I am getting a little suspicious of his wagon...It's a slow build, but nothing else seems to be going anywhere.  scumScore: 25

TwistedArcher: first voter on sudgy.  Vocal proponent of his wagon/lynch.  My gut says, scum doesn't usually do that.  But then I think back to Innovation, and the argument with spiritbears.  OTOH, he wasn't anywhere near the actual lynch (none of us were).  Meh, that leaves me a shade on the scummy-side of neutral.  scumScore: 24

yuma: second voter on sudgy.  He seems to be playing a less blinder-focused game (than TA), although he's definitely going in for the sudgy-lynch.  My memory of scum-yuma was him constantly bringing up partner Glooble as scummy.  He's leading town somewhat, and obviously invested in the game (presumably due to his drought of games).  I think you should be wary of yuma, especially if he has over-accurate reads.  (although he could play up that angle and lead a bunch of mislynches too).  I think I'm going to maintain a scum-read on yuma as I do with shraeye...just too hard to detect for me to feel safe with a town-read towards him.  scumScore: 25

ash: third voter on sudgy.  Huge gambit if he's scum.  scum-ash likes huge gambits.  He has also nicely set himself up to not self-vote, and play to a different meta due to his role.  Ash claiming makes me nervous, because he's not being typical (VT) ash.  But it's not necessarily scummy.  And his reaction to it, is what I would expect from town-ash.  It's just, scum-ash is good enough to fake it.  Bah, I dunno...I'll lean town for now.  scumScore: 20

Eevee: fourth vote on sudgy, abandoned for xerxes.  Kind of quiet, but that's sort of normal for Eevee these days.  Not much of a read here at all.  scumScore: 23

nkirbit: defended sudgy, voted him over contradiction, retracted after explanation.  Vote on Voltaire based on a lack of understanding about the possibilities regarding ash's fake-claim, which I'm still not sure he understands, but maybe Galzria's explanation will clarify it?  I don't think the vote-then-retract was entirely townie...it's just a thing, that either nkirbit would do, or scum-nkirbit felt town-nkirbit would do.  Pretty weak read here.  scumScore: 24

mail-mi: is he lurking as hard as he seems to be?  Voltaire had him in the bottom post-count.  I just feel like, town mail-mi always looked scummy, but my only interaction with scum mail-mi has been lurking mail-mi.  Is this really an invalid read (I think some spectators said it was?)  scumScore: 28

Xerxes: also lurking hard, but new.  I'd love to hear more from him, and hope to hear more as days go on.  null here.  scumScore: 23

Voltaire: this feels like town-voltaire to me.  Admittedly, I've never played with scum-Voltaire.  Probably once I've seen you all as scum and town, I'm just going to have no reads at all day1...but for now, I've got a town-read here.  scumScore: 18

Robz: He's been super-quiet, but might be actually getting into the game.  Cool, I was bummed that he basically never got into MXXX.  He seems the same so far as Robz did there (i.e. non-participatory).  scumScore: 23

chairs: I'm not sure how to read chairs.  Has he ever been scum?  I feel like his game-play is still developing, so it's hard to peg him down.  He posts infrequently.  His reads list is weird, half-joking.  I'm not fully sure I understand all of his reads, which is vaguely suspicious (because they're easy to back out of if they're hard to understand).  scumScore: 24

I'm going to vote: chairs.  Not sure if Voltaire still wants his vote there, but I'm willing to join him and see where things go.

I think chairs was scum in CLUE when he got killed by the Hider plan, and again in Harry Potter when he got killed by me and Galz being awesome town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 10:49:25 pm
Also, on mail-mi, he always lurks.

So 2 questions in that entire mega post from theo.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 10:50:27 pm
Interestingly, scores range from 18-25, with 23 being "average."  Any math to use that to correlate to C9++ rolls?

Seriously though, not the strongest reads, but that's D1 for you.  We need a flip.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 10:50:53 pm
Or claims.

Like, Masons. Dudes.  Please.  You know what's awesome?  Narrowing down the lynch pool by A LOT.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 10:54:29 pm
I am not one to call scumteams... and that isn't what I am doing here, but if sudgy is scum I would peg theorel as his most likely partner, especially after that last post

specifically his comments about me:
yuma: second voter on sudgy.  He seems to be playing a less blinder-focused game (than TA), although he's definitely going in for the sudgy-lynch.  My memory of scum-yuma was him constantly bringing up partner Glooble as scummy.  He's leading town somewhat, and obviously invested in the game (presumably due to his drought of games).  I think you should be wary of yuma, especially if he has over-accurate reads.  (although he could play up that angle and lead a bunch of mislynches too).  I think I'm going to maintain a scum-read on yuma as I do with shraeye...just too hard to detect for me to feel safe with a town-read towards him.  scumScore: 25

and about sudgy:

sudgy: I see the arguments against him, but I don't feel like he's scummy enough to be getting this much support for his lynch.  At this point, I am getting a little suspicious of his wagon...It's a slow build, but nothing else seems to be going anywhere.  scumScore: 25

about me is interesting because he does bring up a game (MXIX) where I bussed Glooble hard. Like, really, really hard. And he brings it up to make everyone wary of me if sudgy flips mafia. This could just be him being wary--and it is a somewhat valid, although very outdated as my views on bussing have changed pretty dramatically since then--or it could be him potentially trying to set me up as a mislynch tomorrow if sudgy (his partner) goes down in flames.

Along that note, that is what makes me suspicious of the second quote. Theorel has been playing this line of saying that sudgy is kinda suspicious, but not worth voting for. He is toeing the line on it. Not disagreeing with it, but not really joining it. He is walking very carefully along the line... maybe trying to see if he should join on as a late busser? But not defending it too hard incase it does go through.

Anyways... like I said, I am not saying theorel and sudgy are partners because I don't know if sudgy is scum or not. But if sudgy is scum, theorel is certainly where I will be looking tomorrow. If sudgy is town... well I will get back to you tomorrow on what I think of him, because a lot will change after seeing sudgy's flip, performing a reread and any nk that we have... And if sudgy doesn't get lynched... well I think that would be just too bad...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 10:55:32 pm
chairs wasn't scum in clue. raerae, nkirbit and liopoil were scum there...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 15, 2013, 11:02:52 pm
chairs wasn't scum in clue. raerae, nkirbit and liopoil were scum there...

Was just about to post that myself!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:08:29 pm
chairs wasn't scum in clue. raerae, nkirbit and liopoil were scum there...

Was just about to post that myself!

Was chairs the Hider, then?  Or the one who came up with the plan?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:08:50 pm
I am not one to call scumteams... and that isn't what I am doing here, but if sudgy is scum I would peg theorel as his most likely partner, especially after that last post

specifically his comments about me:
yuma: second voter on sudgy.  He seems to be playing a less blinder-focused game (than TA), although he's definitely going in for the sudgy-lynch.  My memory of scum-yuma was him constantly bringing up partner Glooble as scummy.  He's leading town somewhat, and obviously invested in the game (presumably due to his drought of games).  I think you should be wary of yuma, especially if he has over-accurate reads.  (although he could play up that angle and lead a bunch of mislynches too).  I think I'm going to maintain a scum-read on yuma as I do with shraeye...just too hard to detect for me to feel safe with a town-read towards him.  scumScore: 25

and about sudgy:

sudgy: I see the arguments against him, but I don't feel like he's scummy enough to be getting this much support for his lynch.  At this point, I am getting a little suspicious of his wagon...It's a slow build, but nothing else seems to be going anywhere.  scumScore: 25

about me is interesting because he does bring up a game (MXIX) where I bussed Glooble hard. Like, really, really hard. And he brings it up to make everyone wary of me if sudgy flips mafia. This could just be him being wary--and it is a somewhat valid, although very outdated as my views on bussing have changed pretty dramatically since then--or it could be him potentially trying to set me up as a mislynch tomorrow if sudgy (his partner) goes down in flames.

Along that note, that is what makes me suspicious of the second quote. Theorel has been playing this line of saying that sudgy is kinda suspicious, but not worth voting for. He is toeing the line on it. Not disagreeing with it, but not really joining it. He is walking very carefully along the line... maybe trying to see if he should join on as a late busser? But not defending it too hard incase it does go through.

Anyways... like I said, I am not saying theorel and sudgy are partners because I don't know if sudgy is scum or not. But if sudgy is scum, theorel is certainly where I will be looking tomorrow. If sudgy is town... well I will get back to you tomorrow on what I think of him, because a lot will change after seeing sudgy's flip, performing a reread and any nk that we have... And if sudgy doesn't get lynched... well I think that would be just too bad...

I think TA is sudgy's partner, if sudgy is scum.

Maybe sudgy-TA-theo?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 11:09:53 pm
chairs wasn't scum in clue. raerae, nkirbit and liopoil were scum there...

Was just about to post that myself!

Was chairs the Hider, then?  Or the one who came up with the plan?

UoS was the hider... and the whole plan was kinda group workshopped by a lot of people...

chairs claimed VT early and was the alternate lynch to voltaire day1 and then lived forever...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 11:11:31 pm
I think TA is sudgy's partner, if sudgy is scum.

Maybe sudgy-TA-theo?

Man I am barely comfortable theorizing that theorel and sudgy might be partners... so I am no where close to suggesting a trio.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:17:26 pm
I think TA is sudgy's partner, if sudgy is scum.

Maybe sudgy-TA-theo?

Man I am barely comfortable theorizing that theorel and sudgy might be partners... so I am no where close to suggesting a trio.

But I always am.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:17:55 pm
chairs wasn't scum in clue. raerae, nkirbit and liopoil were scum there...

Was just about to post that myself!

Was chairs the Hider, then?  Or the one who came up with the plan?

UoS was the hider... and the whole plan was kinda group workshopped by a lot of people...

chairs claimed VT early and was the alternate lynch to voltaire day1 and then lived forever...

I strongly opposed it, and I was town.

Chairs wasn't alive at the end though.  That was me, Jimmmmm, and raerae.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 11:27:32 pm
Reads, after rereading each person:

Eevee: Nothing too special, it picked up a bit with his vote on me (for not noticing TA's wagon).  Also suspects Xerxes.  Null.
Robz: Taken hard stances on vigs not shooting, didn't know the setup and didn't notice other things (ash's claim).  He has said that I would be okay to be lynched, but doesn't say anything really against me or vote for me.  Knowing my alignment, that makes me lean scum on him.
ashersky: Main thing is his claim.  I lean town from it, and would be against his lynch because if he is town, he hasn't used his doc yet.  He's also thought TA was scummy.  I lean town in the end.
Voltaire: Nothing much.  But he almost claimed a PR in post 134?!?  His not saying much rings some bells for me, but still null.
yuma: tunneltunneltunnel.  Come on yuma, you have so many tunnels, if just dropped the case on me and discarded it, you would get so much gold.  Okay, seriously now, his main contribution has been tunneling me.  I'm thinking he's just misguided town, but I'm not sure where I get that.  I would think he wouldn't do it as scum.  So slight town.
TA: Didn't remember much, reading back all I remember of it was his not saying if he would vig N1 or not.  And his case on me.  Null.
theorel: usual self, posting a bajillion statistics, the main interesting things is that he doesn't see me as too scummy.  In the end, though, it's a null.
sudgy: I don't see much of a case on him.  Obv town.  ;)
mail-mi: Hard to read, but seems close to his usual self.  He had the same stance as Robz did, and that seems scummy, but not quite as much for him.  So, null-ish I guess.
chairs: He has almost nothing.  Slight scum-ish because of that.  Slight tangent (not a sine or cosine), but this got me frustrated:

Sudgy - His discussion on how "scum!sudgy" plays like "town!sudgy" sounded forced the last time I heard it, and it sounds force d now.  Sudgy, you need a new meta, man.  Scummy.

I can't change my meta, that's me.  You can't get mad at me for just being me, and it definitely doesn't deserve a vote.

nkirbit: He jumps around in votes for a while, finally landing on me for contradicting myself.  Could you tell me where that was?  Null.
Xerxes: Has too few posts to know anything, so null.


Also, I was just thinking, anybody who is voting me for my voting patterns pre-robz vote, that is the dumbest thing ever.  I do it every game, to get the game going, but it always backfires and gets me lynched.  Almost every game.  I get lynched.  It's frustrating.  CAN SOMEONE ACTUALLY LYNCH ME FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN BEING NORMAL?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?  It's frustrating how I get lynched almost every game for the worst reason ever.

Vote: Robz888 because it's my biggest scumread, but not much.  And I am going to policy vote anybody who votes me for being like I usually am.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 11:34:23 pm
nkirbit: He jumps around in votes for a while, finally landing on me for contradicting myself.  Could you tell me where that was?  Null.

He actually ultimately lands away from you...

here are the two posts in question:

I find Sudgy contradicting what he said earlier to be scummy.

Theorel, I don't understand what you're talking about with regards to the SK.  If Ash is on a scumteam of two, he knows, 100%, that 1-shot doctor is a fake claim.  Whether or not there is a SK.  Every single time.  Give me a setup that has a two man scum-team that has a one-shot doctor in it and I'll be forced to admit I have absolutely no clue how this set up works, but as far as I can tell, there is no such setup.

I'm not saying that Ash is scum.  I don't think he is.  But he's far from an IC.

I went with TA's interpretation but I now see that's wrong.  Unvote to reconsider.

and is now voting for voltaire I believe...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:34:43 pm
I could support a Robz lynch.  Scum!Robz definitely rides his own coattails through D1.  This is a normal, known set-up.  No excuses.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 11:35:20 pm
And I am going to policy vote anybody who votes me for being like I usually am.

Pre-emptive OMGUS? Interesting...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 15, 2013, 11:36:28 pm
And I am going to policy vote anybody who votes me for being like I usually am.

Pre-emptive OMGUS? Interesting...

I am fine with people voting me for actual reasons, and will accept those votes.  But stupid reasons need to be punished.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 15, 2013, 11:38:37 pm
And I am going to policy vote anybody who votes me for being like I usually am.

Pre-emptive OMGUS? Interesting...

I am fine with people voting me for actual reasons, and will accept those votes.  But stupid reasons need to be punished.

Who would you characterize as having actual reasons for voting you as opposed to stupid reasons for voting you?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 15, 2013, 11:46:23 pm
Or claims.

Like, Masons. Dudes.  Please.  You know what's awesome?  Narrowing down the lynch pool by A LOT.

No.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:46:39 pm
Yuma, I just realized we haven't voted for each other yet.

I think that proves 2 things:

1) the world will explode in the next 48 hours;
2) we aren't scum together
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:46:55 pm
Or claims.

Like, Masons. Dudes.  Please.  You know what's awesome?  Narrowing down the lynch pool by A LOT.

No.

Narrowing down the lynch pool is not awesome?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 15, 2013, 11:54:48 pm
I could support a Robz lynch.  Scum!Robz definitely rides his own coattails through D1.  This is a normal, known set-up.  No excuses.

"Known, open setup" means nothing in regards to Robz. Shame on you for FoS'ing him over that. He barely reads his own PM's from the mod. Mafia Noir ring any bells? Much less setup information...

And I actually recall him getting schooled by claims from scum in a similar setup to this (I think Grujah was scum?) Because he didn't bother to read the setup and understand it until D3.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 15, 2013, 11:57:46 pm
Or claims.

Like, Masons. Dudes.  Please.  You know what's awesome?  Narrowing down the lynch pool by A LOT.

No.

Narrowing down the lynch pool is not awesome?

Stop making anti-town suggestions.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:58:05 pm
I could support a Robz lynch.  Scum!Robz definitely rides his own coattails through D1.  This is a normal, known set-up.  No excuses.

"Known, open setup" means nothing in regards to Robz. Shame on you for FoS'ing him over that. He barely reads his own PM's from the mod. Mafia Noir ring any bells? Much less setup information...

And I actually recall him getting schooled by claims from scum in a similar setup to this (I think Grujah was scum?) Because he didn't bother to read the setup and understand it until D3.

I never said open.  Show me open.  No open in that quote.  Liar liar pants on fire.

Oh wait, you are an IC.  Damn.  Scummy.

But, my point is that Robz likes to say "welp, this is RMM, so don't expect me to care until at least D2" and get away with it.  Not so with a comparatively easy setup like C9++.  So him trying to sleep his way through D1 is a fantastic scum tactic for him, because it will work.  Especially if you are on his side here.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 15, 2013, 11:59:35 pm
Or claims.

Like, Masons. Dudes.  Please.  You know what's awesome?  Narrowing down the lynch pool by A LOT.

No.

Narrowing down the lynch pool is not awesome?

Stop making anti-town suggestions.

You stop.  I still contend a Masons claim is absolutely the best call for D1.

You get 3 ICs until D2.  Scum is cornered into forced kill targets for 3 nights.  We have doctors to mess with that.  Like, 2/3 chance of them whiffing on N1.  If they shoot elsewhere, they're POEing themselves more and more every day.

It is not anti-town, man.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 12:01:36 am
I could support a Robz lynch.  Scum!Robz definitely rides his own coattails through D1.  This is a normal, known set-up.  No excuses.

"Known, open setup" means nothing in regards to Robz. Shame on you for FoS'ing him over that. He barely reads his own PM's from the mod. Mafia Noir ring any bells? Much less setup information...

And I actually recall him getting schooled by claims from scum in a similar setup to this (I think Grujah was scum?) Because he didn't bother to read the setup and understand it until D3.

I never said open.  Show me open.  No open in that quote.  Liar liar pants on fire.

Oh wait, you are an IC.  Damn.  Scummy.

But, my point is that Robz likes to say "welp, this is RMM, so don't expect me to care until at least D2" and get away with it.  Not so with a comparatively easy setup like C9++.  So him trying to sleep his way through D1 is a fantastic scum tactic for him, because it will work.  Especially if you are on his side here.

Except he's done it as town, so too bad. Stop trying to out our PR's for scum to kill, and stop pushing cases that are true of both town and scum meta's, and then calling them scummy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 12:02:35 am
Or claims.

Like, Masons. Dudes.  Please.  You know what's awesome?  Narrowing down the lynch pool by A LOT.

No.

Narrowing down the lynch pool is not awesome?

Stop making anti-town suggestions.

You stop.  I still contend a Masons claim is absolutely the best call for D1.

You get 3 ICs until D2.  Scum is cornered into forced kill targets for 3 nights.  We have doctors to mess with that.  Like, 2/3 chance of them whiffing on N1.  If they shoot elsewhere, they're POEing themselves more and more every day.

It is not anti-town, man.

Yes, it is.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 12:15:54 am
Assume our setup is:

M-DD-xxxx, as you're claiming it is.

Now assume scum rolled 3T/4T.

Scum know, after your claim (gee, thanks), that there's only one possible unaccounted for 'x' (M-DD-TTT-x).

Mafia can now safely claim Mason. Why not? By doing so, they're suggesting a setup of MMM-DD-xx. Since a SK in that setup only requires a single T (MMM-DD-T-x), if one exists he wouldn't be particularly suspicious as there's still one unclaimed letter.

Now, because there are multiple Doctors in the setup, scum can play around with when and whom to kill. Based on any additional claims they can determine if they're really 3T or 4T (and thus if there's a SK). Further, they don't even draw THAT much suspicion by not dying right away because there's at LEAST two other targets they could choose to shoot first. Add in any other claims, and they possibly have 3/4 other people to shoot.

And lastly they can argue that scum is choosing not to kill them to frame them.

So "Masons", should not claim at this point. I haven't even considered if you're lying scum who wants his scum buddies to claim Mason yet.

Regardless, no claims. They DON'T narrow the lynch pool and they DO give scum more information.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 12:19:05 am
No I agree with Ash. That's 2 doctors and 3 ICs, if Masons claim.

No way scum counterclaim Masons D1. That's 3 ICs.

That's a lot of PoE, and with 1 doc + a 1-shot, that's a tough situation for mafia. They have no choice to shoot the ICs, and hope they outguess town.

Lots of ICs + lots of ways to protect ICs is great. It would also mean we likely don't have any cops. PoE and keeping ICs alive would be the best course of measure.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 12:20:28 am
Granted, my analysis isn't based on an in-depth look at the setup. Doing that now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 12:22:32 am
Okay, I get what you're saying Galz, but your analysis assumes that there aren't masons. If there ARE masons, they know it's invalid, and your analysis is moot.

Saying what masons shouldn't do based off of analysis that assumes no masons doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 12:26:17 am
Okay, I get what you're saying Galz, but your analysis assumes that there aren't masons. If there ARE masons, they know it's invalid, and your analysis is moot.

Saying what masons shouldn't do based off of analysis that assumes no masons doesn't make sense.

That's wrong. Decisions need to be made based on what we can verify as true. "Masons" claiming don't put me ortownany closer to knowing if they are actually Masons or scum fake claiming. But it does let scum know who the Masons are.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 16, 2013, 12:36:32 am
And I am going to policy vote anybody who votes me for being like I usually am.

Pre-emptive OMGUS? Interesting...

I am fine with people voting me for actual reasons, and will accept those votes.  But stupid reasons need to be punished.

Who would you characterize as having actual reasons for voting you as opposed to stupid reasons for voting you?

Chairs is the main one I think of that has a stupid reason for voting, others I would have to look back at.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 12:51:28 am
And I am going to policy vote anybody who votes me for being like I usually am.

Pre-emptive OMGUS? Interesting...

I am fine with people voting me for actual reasons, and will accept those votes.  But stupid reasons need to be punished.

Who would you characterize as having actual reasons for voting you as opposed to stupid reasons for voting you?

Chairs is the main one I think of that has a stupid reason for voting, others I would have to look back at.

then you aren't getting lynched for stupid reasons... are you...? one vote does not a lynch make. So is your frustration more that you are getting lynched because you are mafia than it is that you are getting lynched for stupid reasons? Obviously I don't expect you to answer this last question, but this is what I am wondering after your rather dramatic (although dramatic isn't the right word... I can't think of the one I am looking for... it is late) reactions to being voted.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 16, 2013, 12:56:19 am
And I am going to policy vote anybody who votes me for being like I usually am.

Pre-emptive OMGUS? Interesting...

I am fine with people voting me for actual reasons, and will accept those votes.  But stupid reasons need to be punished.

Who would you characterize as having actual reasons for voting you as opposed to stupid reasons for voting you?

Chairs is the main one I think of that has a stupid reason for voting, others I would have to look back at.

then you aren't getting lynched for stupid reasons... are you...? one vote does not a lynch make. So is your frustration more that you are getting lynched because you are mafia than it is that you are getting lynched for stupid reasons? Obviously I don't expect you to answer this last question, but this is what I am wondering after your rather dramatic (although dramatic isn't the right word... I can't think of the one I am looking for... it is late) reactions to being voted.

I'm sure others have, but I would need to look at them.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 16, 2013, 12:58:59 am
Okay, wow, I just looked at everybody's votes they had on me, and they either had no explanation, or was before I explained my votes.  All people voting me, can you please say why you are?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 01:04:46 am
Assume our setup is:

M-DD-xxxx, as you're claiming it is.

Now assume scum rolled 3T/4T.

Scum know, after your claim (gee, thanks), that there's only one possible unaccounted for 'x' (M-DD-TTT-x).

Mafia can now safely claim Mason. Why not? By doing so, they're suggesting a setup of MMM-DD-xx. Since a SK in that setup only requires a single T (MMM-DD-T-x), if one exists he wouldn't be particularly suspicious as there's still one unclaimed letter.

Now, because there are multiple Doctors in the setup, scum can play around with when and whom to kill. Based on any additional claims they can determine if they're really 3T or 4T (and thus if there's a SK). Further, they don't even draw THAT much suspicion by not dying right away because there's at LEAST two other targets they could choose to shoot first. Add in any other claims, and they possibly have 3/4 other people to shoot.

And lastly they can argue that scum is choosing not to kill them to frame them.

So "Masons", should not claim at this point. I haven't even considered if you're lying scum who wants his scum buddies to claim Mason yet.

Regardless, no claims. They DON'T narrow the lynch pool and they DO give scum more information.

You know I took into account the chance that scum fake claimed masons, right?  That was even my hope.  Pretty easy to confirm by D3 if the masons were lying, and then we have TWO scum caught in fake claims.  If 3 ICs live through 3 nights, pretty good chance they aren't ICs.

That was my point.  I mean, my POE lynch pool narrowing thing was also valid, but was in fact secondary to baiting scum to fake claim, or at least consider it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:09:14 am
Except you obviously didn't take it into account because scum don't easily get caught at all. D3, or any other day.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 01:37:10 am
Except you obviously didn't take it into account because scum don't easily get caught at all. D3, or any other day.

Right, we never catch scum ever.  If fact, we didn't catch any scum at all with a crazy out of nowhere PR claim from town on D1 in Harry Potter, did we?  Town never wins because they never catch scum, so I don't even know why we try.

If you weren't the IC, you would be in terrible shape right now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:45:01 am
Except you obviously didn't take it into account because scum don't easily get caught at all. D3, or any other day.

Right, we never catch scum ever.  If fact, we didn't catch any scum at all with a crazy out of nowhere PR claim from town on D1 in Harry Potter, did we?  Town never wins because they never catch scum, so I don't even know why we try.

If you weren't the IC, you would be in terrible shape right now.

Hardly. I'm not the one suggesting unsupported and terrible ideas that are verifiably anti-town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 02:03:17 am
Except you obviously didn't take it into account because scum don't easily get caught at all. D3, or any other day.

Right, we never catch scum ever.  If fact, we didn't catch any scum at all with a crazy out of nowhere PR claim from town on D1 in Harry Potter, did we?  Town never wins because they never catch scum, so I don't even know why we try.

If you weren't the IC, you would be in terrible shape right now.

Hardly. I'm not the one suggesting unsupported and terrible ideas that are verifiably anti-town.

Then lynch me.  You are adding zero to this game.  All you are doing is shitting on people who are actually generating content and trying to find ways to catch the bad guys.  Literally all of your "content" posts are just rebuttals of me or others on theory.

You want to be in charge because you are mod-confirmed town?  Then lead.  Bullying doesn't help anyone, whether you think it is pro-town or not.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 02:12:47 am
Except you obviously didn't take it into account because scum don't easily get caught at all. D3, or any other day.

Right, we never catch scum ever.  If fact, we didn't catch any scum at all with a crazy out of nowhere PR claim from town on D1 in Harry Potter, did we?  Town never wins because they never catch scum, so I don't even know why we try.

If you weren't the IC, you would be in terrible shape right now.

Hardly. I'm not the one suggesting unsupported and terrible ideas that are verifiably anti-town.

Then lynch me.  You are adding zero to this game.  All you are doing is shitting on people who are actually generating content and trying to find ways to catch the bad guys.  Literally all of your "content" posts are just rebuttals of me or others on theory.

You want to be in charge because you are mod-confirmed town?  Then lead.  Bullying doesn't help anyone, whether you think it is pro-town or not.

Will do. Happily.

vote: Ashersky

The case on him is simple: He's continuously pushed bad ideas without bothering to support them, and when called on them being bad and actually shown why, he throws a hissy fit. It's the same as when Ash /out'ed of every game he was signed up for because he wanted to play the "screw all you guys" card in his only current game (don't recall which one that was at the time). He was scum in that game, and people dropped the case against him because he threatened to leave the community.

When he's town, he screams just as loudly, but he actually backs his points up. When he's scum, he doesn't bother. He just tries to scream loudest and use whatever he can to get people not to lynch him.

Here I absolutely wouldn't put it past scum!Ash to try and draw out all of our PR's by claiming OSD. It's not that big a stretch, as I've already laid out. Further, he hasn't bothered to actually think things through, and when called on it... Well, if he's town, he's only brought this on himself. "Then lynch me" is as good as a self vote in my book.

If he is what he claims, then we learn that there's a full Doctor in the setup, know for a fact that we're MDD, and we don't out any other PR's for scum to kill tonight. Win, Win, and win.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 16, 2013, 02:17:01 am
So, what does everybody else think of Robz?  He hasn't been doing much, and needs to.

PPE: Galz, even if we think ash is scum, I think it's a bad idea to lynch him.  If he is what he claims, we've lost our doc.  After he claims to use his doc, we can lynch him.  We could even set a limit to when he can use it.  And if he's scum, we'll lynch him later.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 02:17:37 am
vote: ashersky

Have fun.  I'm not.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 02:18:16 am
So, what does everybody else think of Robz?  He hasn't been doing much, and needs to.

PPE: Galz, even if we think ash is scum, I think it's a bad idea to lynch him.  If he is what he claims, we've lost our doc.  After he claims to use his doc, we can lynch him.  We could even set a limit to when he can use it.  And if he's scum, we'll lynch him later.

Robz is scum, Galz is his partner.

Oh wait, Galz is IC.  Just sounds that way.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 02:22:34 am
Also, not only am I not having fun, I will do everything I can from now until I'm lynched to help scum win.  Because screw this, and it isn't against any rules, nor it is a personal attack, so it isn't against the Civility Pledge.

Galz, word to the wise, treating other members of town in a terrible way doesn't help you.  If you were scum, I'd say go for it.  But as IC, it is the wrong tact to take.  Demeaning people as town does set you up for a good place for your next scum game, so I understand why you do it.  But you are hurting this game by doing it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 02:25:50 am
Hey, jeez, settle down please.

Ashersky, I don't think Galz is demeaning you. He is allowed to call your ideas "terrible" and "verifiable anti-town." I'm inclined to actually agree with you on the Masons thing--well, at least that if they fake claimed, we would probably catch them--but I don't think Galz's position is unreasonable, and more to the point, he didn't demean you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 02:26:29 am
Also, not only am I not having fun, I will do everything I can from now until I'm lynched to help scum win.  Because screw this, and it isn't against any rules, nor it is a personal attack, so it isn't against the Civility Pledge.

Okay, but even if Galz DID demean you--and he didn't--why do your teammates deserve to suffer for it?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 02:27:14 am
Ash, you're not thinking straight. Please take a step back, re-read what Galz said, and explain why you think he's wrong, without holding the entire town hostage.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 02:28:35 am
Also, not only am I not having fun, I will do everything I can from now until I'm lynched to help scum win.  Because screw this, and it isn't against any rules, nor it is a personal attack, so it isn't against the Civility Pledge.

Galz, word to the wise, treating other members of town in a terrible way doesn't help you.  If you were scum, I'd say go for it.  But as IC, it is the wrong tact to take.  Demeaning people as town does set you up for a good place for your next scum game, so I understand why you do it.  But you are hurting this game by doing it.

I've presented reasonable arguments based on the known information. You've responded with smart ass responses, and I've called you on it. It's as simple as that. If you had actually bothered to rebut anything, or support your claims that thusfar remain baseless, this would be different. But you haven't. So, sorry, nope, don't feel bad.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 02:30:21 am
Gala, you need to learn that being town does not equal being right.  You can't see past your own brilliance sometimes.  And it will hurt us all.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 02:32:21 am
Gala, you need to learn that being town does not equal being right.  You can't see past your own brilliance sometimes.  And it will hurt us all.

Never said I was absolutely right. I have repeatedly challenged you to support your own stated beliefs that say that I'm wrong. Something you've yet to do.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 03:12:28 am
Gala, you need to learn that being town does not equal being right.  You can't see past your own brilliance sometimes.  And it will hurt us all.

Never said I was absolutely right. I have repeatedly challenged you to support your own stated beliefs that say that I'm wrong. Something you've yet to do.

I am able to rebut you...but I can't without breaking rules.  And I can't say any more.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 04:14:33 am
Assume our setup is:

M-DD-xxxx, as you're claiming it is.

Now assume scum rolled 3T/4T.

Scum know, after your claim (gee, thanks), that there's only one possible unaccounted for 'x' (M-DD-TTT-x).

Mafia can now safely claim Mason. Why not? By doing so, they're suggesting a setup of MMM-DD-xx. Since a SK in that setup only requires a single T (MMM-DD-T-x), if one exists he wouldn't be particularly suspicious as there's still one unclaimed letter.

Now, because there are multiple Doctors in the setup, scum can play around with when and whom to kill. Based on any additional claims they can determine if they're really 3T or 4T (and thus if there's a SK). Further, they don't even draw THAT much suspicion by not dying right away because there's at LEAST two other targets they could choose to shoot first. Add in any other claims, and they possibly have 3/4 other people to shoot.

And lastly they can argue that scum is choosing not to kill them to frame them.

So "Masons", should not claim at this point. I haven't even considered if you're lying scum who wants his scum buddies to claim Mason yet.

Regardless, no claims. They DON'T narrow the lynch pool and they DO give scum more information.

However, if you want factual rebuttals, your entire analysis above is based on two out of five possible scenarios, so not even more likely than not.  0, 1, 2 Ts are also possible, and mafia can't safe claim there.

Also, your 2 scenarios out of 5 are Goon-Goon-RB.  With no godfather and still the possibility of a C, a mason fake claim is too risky.  Remember, mason fake claims kill 2 scum when outed.

Right now, town is looking at 11 possible lynches.  I believe most town would prefer to narrow that to 9 right now.  This is a normal game.  We need to focus on making the days easier for us.  This game is about how we perform during the days, not the nights.  If we scum hunt well, it won't matter if any town PR succeeds at night.

You have argued that we don't do D1 right.  Follow your own advice.  Focus on how we can POE, because that's our best tool for scum hunting.  Stop worrying about scum having "too much" info at night and who gets killed.  Every town death helps us catch scum, in the end.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 05:48:58 am
The possibility of a C is irrelevant. As you yourself point out, that setup contains a Roleblocker. If a C roll exists, it's simply going to be locked down. So the fake claim is still perfectly safe.

And yes, I noted that it's from a 3T/4T situation. Do you have knowledge that we aren't in that situation? Then playing to 0T, 1T or 2T is a not a good idea. And the extra claiming does not help us PoE anything, because it could very well be removing SCUM from the lynch pool.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 05:58:57 am
And remember Ash, it was YOU who pushed for Mafia to know exactly who the Cop was in that scenario as well, in #112, and #144, where you claim our Cop, if he exists, should claim.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 06:19:29 am
Just about the only hope we would have in that scenario is that the SK doesn't get lynched early from your "PoE'd" field, and that he NK's a Mason, giving us a flip.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 16, 2013, 06:25:29 am
Vote Count 1.6:

Chairs (2): Voltaire, theorel
Sudgy (4): Twistedarcher, Yuma, XerxesPraelor, Chairs
Ashersky (3): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Voltaire (1): Nkirbit
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
Robz888 (1): sudgy

Not Voting (0):

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 06:52:06 am
If I reveal my flavor name, I get mod killed and we go to night, correct?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 16, 2013, 10:03:27 am
ash, don't kill yourself.
I don't understand what your PM or flavor could possibly say that would make masons claiming better.

Trying to trick scum into fake-claiming masons is not likely to work.  I think the only scum likely to take that size of risk is you.  But, it is an issue that needs to be considered.  Then you pointed out precisely the problem with it...if town-masons claimed now, scum could just bide their time hunting the doc until day3 (thus never losing a NK, because doc should protect the 3 "IC"s) when we lynch the masons for a loss, because masons that live for 3 days are clearly scum (according to you).

Or maybe we shouldn't assume living claimed masons are scum, then scum should claim masons, and then they get by because their claim is so far out there.  Would scum really do it?  Have they ever done it?  You're the fake-claiming scum, mostly scum just claims VT, and is done with it.

I get that Galzria inflamed you with his arguments.  You inflamed him too.  You've both talked about the other as though he's incapable of higher thought.  I know I've said similar to you (ash), and you were offended by it (outside of a game).  But you've used "being offended" as a scum-technique.  Which makes things even worse, because now when you are upset by someone you have no real recourse to take.  If you claim to be upset, it just looks like you being scum.  You've manipulated with your emotions, and so they can't be viewed as serious.

My suggestion is that you drop it, because you have different views on claiming than others.  You should know this sufficiently to not be offended when someone finds your views anti-town.  So, stop being offended.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 10:16:06 am
/out (I am dead serious here...)

I signed up to play mafia not to be a part of a soap opera. I'll /in if ash and Galz can get their crap together.

If this is how it is going to go down... let's just cancel this and move on to toy story.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 10:22:03 am
Okay, I get what you're saying Galz, but your analysis assumes that there aren't masons. If there ARE masons, they know it's invalid, and your analysis is moot.

Saying what masons shouldn't do based off of analysis that assumes no masons doesn't make sense.

That's wrong. Decisions need to be made based on what we can verify as true. "Masons" claiming don't put me ortownany closer to knowing if they are actually Masons or scum fake claiming. But it does let scum know who the Masons are.

Why is this a terrible thing, though? If scum want to kill masons rather than kill doctors, I am all for that personally. One mason dying is not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 16, 2013, 10:36:16 am
If I reveal my flavor name, I get mod killed and we go to night, correct?
No!!! This is a GAME. We're here to have fun. We don't want another NMIII (shudder)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 11:17:09 am
If you weren't the IC, you would be in terrible shape right now.

Ash, dude-who-I-currently-think-is-on-my-team, this statement right here is why I have a hard time following along with you. You pre-decide a behavior is scummy, then when you see it, you call the person scum! That it is happening right here with the IC should show you the flaw here.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 11:24:17 am
/out (I am dead serious here...)

I'm of two minds about this.

1. I want to agree and follow
2. ash will use this ploy (and I am certain it is a ploy) again and again. I think it's a dirty way of playing, personally, and should be against the Civility Pledge. Because it causes the above quoted reactions.

I myself have felt them too ie wanted to /out of games with ash in them when he starts acting ridiculous. After thinking it through, though, vote: ashersky accomplishes the same thing as what he's proposing and runs no risk he's scum hoping we talk him out of it.

Basically, if you want to threaten to break rules (even if it's a ploy), I'd rather we lynched you and your plan doesn't get to work. At least not how you wanted it to.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 11:25:16 am
And it also means the game can continue.

Ash, I know you are running a gambit here. If you're town, you may think it increases town's chance of winning. But please look at what it does to the community. It's not worth it.

And if you're scum, I'm happy to be voting you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 11:37:46 am
/out (I am dead serious here...)

I'm of two minds about this.

1. I want to agree and follow
2. ash will use this ploy (and I am certain it is a ploy) again and again. I think it's a dirty way of playing, personally, and should be against the Civility Pledge. Because it causes the above quoted reactions.

I myself have felt them too ie wanted to /out of games with ash in them when he starts acting ridiculous. After thinking it through, though, vote: ashersky accomplishes the same thing as what he's proposing and runs no risk he's scum hoping we talk him out of it.

Basically, if you want to threaten to break rules (even if it's a ploy), I'd rather we lynched you and your plan doesn't get to work. At least not how you wanted it to.

I have no desire to be part of a game where someone that I strongly think is town is getting lynched or modkilled because of a stupid argument that probably doesn't even pertain to this game.

I have no assigning blame to any individual in particular. From someone who has been in a situation where a game was ruined because of a stupid argument I was a part of, you can't just assign blame to one person. Both parties hold some responsibility. So does everyone else in the game and the mod as well.

But really.... I am about one more instance like this from giving up the community. It just isn't fun when it gets to this point. And further it is driving away other players...

I received this PM from someone today after seeing the events that went down. I won't give out their name, but this is what was said (slightly paraphrased)

Quote
The level of discourse in M32 right now is sort of an example of why I am probably not going to be signing up for mafia games in the future

These sort of arguments don't just affect the players involved in the argument. They affect all the other players, the mod and the spectators and everyone else that enjoys playing mafia here.

So to everyone involved if you want this community (and not to mention this game) to have a future, get your crap together and start acting like rational human beings. I learned the hard way what happens when you don't do that, so don't let that happen to everyone again.

Let me know if/when that happens. Until then you won't be hearing from me again.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 11:41:24 am
Not sure if your quoting me means you were talking to me specifically and if you didn't like my vote on him. I think I'm agreeing with you. Anyway at least on this.

But please [ash] look at what it does to the community. It's not worth it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 12:10:32 pm
I won't drop voting for ashersky here, nor stop pushing his lynch, no.

My issue is not, nor had ever been, that I think he's wrong. I'm voting for him over the vitriolic response he gave to me for pointing out why I feel he's wrong, and using the very setup to support my reasoning. Had he responded in a level headed manner of discussion, backing up his own statements, or demonstrating why he feels he's right, this would be very different.

I've taken absolutely nothing he's said personally. He's played exactly this way in the past as scum. He's played similar as town. I take no issue with either. I simply feel that this level of response, combined with his refusal to discuss things rationally in light of how the setup can actually be built point more likely towards this matching his scum meta of play than his town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 12:16:31 pm
I'm just trying to ignore it, I don't feel like analyzing that level of emotion.

Galz, are you basically saying that masons shouldn't claim until there's enough flips that we can be 100% sure of their claim? (Or reasonably close). I'd disagree with that.

Scum claiming masons is awful awful for them. Just terrible. They won't do it d1. There's the risk of a Sk existing and outing one of them, and then their game is basically over. I can't see any circumstance where scum would want to back themselves into that corner -- it's just too big of a risk.

Town masons should claim now rather than later. It helps the Poe now, and I think scum are more likely to want to counterclaim after figuring out wether or not a Sk is in the game.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 12:18:08 pm
Another unrelated thought that the last post generated:

Obviously, we want to know if there's a Sk or not. But also mafia wants to know. And I think they gain more from that information than town does. Therefore, we shouldn't help them figure that out (looking mostly at possible vig claims here).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 12:19:36 pm
Town masons should claim now rather than later.

We'd also need people to claim "not mason" in case masons don't exist though, right?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 12:22:46 pm
I won't drop voting for ashersky here, nor stop pushing his lynch, no.

I must agree with Galz.

Because Galz said nothing particularly offensive to ashersky, the only reason I can think for ashersky to have had that reaction is because it's a ploy.

I mean, ash's reaction is textbook in violation of the Civility Pledge, in my judgment--it was escalating, and falsely assumed his opponent's worst intentions, and was not based on real harm--and I presume ash actually knows this.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 12:23:23 pm
But really, there's no reason for ill feelings here. Can it just be put to rest now?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 12:26:02 pm
Robz, I assume you think it's a town ploy since I don't see a vote?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 16, 2013, 12:37:43 pm
Yeah, I'm annoyed by the antics as well.
Vote: Ashersky
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 12:38:56 pm
Robz, I assume you think it's a town ploy since I don't see a vote?

Oh. You were already voting ash. nvm
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 16, 2013, 12:50:19 pm
I don't want to vote Ashersky because I don't think he's scum.  I'm most suspicious of Xerxes' out of all the people voting for him.. it seems like the type of bandwagoning vote that scum would make.

Vote: Xerxes
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 12:56:15 pm
I don't want to vote Ashersky because I don't think he's scum.  I'm most suspicious of Xerxes' out of all the people voting for him.. it seems like the type of bandwagoning vote that scum would make.

Vote: Xerxes

As I pointed out before, I think that Xerxes is intentionally wagoning just to get a lynch through because that's how new-to-forum-mafia players play D1. Go back and re-read him.

(I'm not claiming this is good per se but I think it's a strong-ish town read on him)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:17:24 pm
I'm just trying to ignore it, I don't feel like analyzing that level of emotion.

Galz, are you basically saying that masons shouldn't claim until there's enough flips that we can be 100% sure of their claim? (Or reasonably close). I'd disagree with that.

Scum claiming masons is awful awful for them. Just terrible. They won't do it d1. There's the risk of a Sk existing and outing one of them, and then their game is basically over. I can't see any circumstance where scum would want to back themselves into that corner -- it's just too big of a risk.

Town masons should claim now rather than later. It helps the Poe now, and I think scum are more likely to want to counterclaim after figuring out wether or not a Sk is in the game.

It really wouldn't be that terrible for them. If I were scum, and I knew Ashersky to be town (after his claim), having rolled a 3T/4T setup, I would honestly consider it.

- I would know that the setup is M-DD-TTT-x.
- I would know that I could not be counter-claimed.
- I would know that it's a good place for regular Masons to claim.
- I would know that even if that last undisclosed letter were an 'C' for a 1-shot cop, if we could get a full-claim as Ashersky has been pushing, he wouldn't be a threat to us.
- I would know that if there WASN'T an extra PR in the town that claimed, the setup would be M-DD-TTTT, and there wouldn't even BE a Serial Killer to worry about.
- I would know that even if there was a Serial Killer, I could get the lynch pool reduced to 13 - {IC/Mason/Mason/Doctor/One-Shot-Doctor/'x'} = 7 players, that includes the SK.
- If there's no SK, that lynch pool is 8 players, while the unlynchable pool is 5 players. D1 we would lynch in the pool of 8, while blocking one Doctor and shooting the other. D2 we would lynch #2 in the pool of 8, and shoot the other Doctor at night. D3 we would lynch #3 in the pool of 8, and shoot the IC at night. D4 would dawn with 7 alive, and 3 scum. lylo. Are you going to risk lynching a Mason here? The NK's haven't been at all unreasonable. Put another way, if the setup really WAS MMMDDTT (no SK, real Masons), then I would expect the night kills that I've outlined here would be -exactly the same as if the scum are fakeclaiming Mason-. Having Masons claim now, when there won't ever be a way to verify if they're town or scum fake claiming, would be really bad, because we WON'T figure it out, and it simply tells scum both who TO kill, and who NOT to kill.
- Now, if there's a SK that means there's an extra PR. This is only a little bit more tricky for Mafia. First, the pool of players that the SK will exist in is only 7 strong. But Mafia can't afford for that pool to get too small too quickly. D1 I expect the lynch to land there. The Mafia Roleblock will likely occur on the extra PR (cop/Roleblocker/vig), and their shot will go into the mix of PR's. I think this is a WIFOM game that can be won by scum most of the time. It would NOT deter me from playing this gambit. I also doubt that the SK would shoot a Mason N1, as they're going to be more interested in knocking off the first Mafia, and after a lynch in the pool of 7 and knowing their own alignment, if the Masons are truthful they've got a 3/5 chance of hitting scum. D2 would dawn then with 5 left in the pool of non-PR players, 5 PR's. After a D2 lynch of the non-PR's, that pool is down to 4. That's 2/6 chances at hitting the SK, and 3/7 overall. If the SK is dead, I would use our Roleblock in the PR's again, and shoot into them again. If the SK is still alive, I would use the Roleblock on the remaining 4 non-PR's, and shoot into the PR's. Realize of course, that I've got 1 member of my Mafia team in the non-PR claims. So my pool of players that the SK could exist in isn't 4, it's 3. The SK likely tries to shoot a Mason here if he's still alive. This is unfortunate, but it's a risk. Going into the Gambit, I feel confident enough in my odds to nullify the SK by this point that I still think it's worth it.
- Assuming the SK kill goes through on N2, and a Mason dies, the two pools are now at 4 non-PR's, 3 PR's ("Mason" died, as did our PR kill). The D3 lynch is on a "Mason". Now, the Roleblocker cannot block and shoot in the same night. He's got a 1/2 chance of guessing who the SK is. The SK has a 1/3 chance to guess who the Mafioso is. If the Roleblocker blocks correctly, nobody dies and Day 4 is 4 non-PR's, 2 IC's. If you lynch either scum, the other NK's an IC. This brings you down to 3 non-PR's, 1 IC. mylo. If you lynched town instead, the Mafioso would Roleblock the SK again, presenting the same as the following situation on the following Day 5: If the Roleblocker blocks incorrectly on Night 3 (but isn't killed by the SK), Day 4 is 3 non-PR's, 2 IC's. Lynch scum here and you're in lylo the following day. Lynch town and.... Happily Ever After? The Roleblocker would lock down the SK each night, and town can't lynch either or they kingmake, so they no-lynch. Eh, that's acceptable to me as scum. The only risk I run here as Mafia, this crazy far down the line, is that:

A) My plan blew up and there IS a SK AND they got their shot through on N2 on one of my Masons, and
B) on N3, the Roleblocker missed the SK, and the SK shot him.
C) on Day 4 / Day 5, the last Mafia was lynched out of the pool of non-PR claims.

All three of those are minimally likely that it's well within what I would consider as "acceptable risks" as scum. And damn man, the amount of town cred I would buy by fake claiming Mason is ridiculous. Not to mention I didn't even look at the outcome that's more likely by N2: that the SK kill is nullified, no Mason dies, and D3 dawns with 4 non-PR's, 4 PR's. That's 8 alive with a known SK and 3 scum. We can't afford to blind lynch into the Masons, who might be telling the truth, so instead we lynch a non-PR. Now, if the SK isn't dead yet, then the Mafia know who he likely is (based on their Roleblock the previous night) and may attempt to steer the NK to him. Even if they don't they can Roleblock him again N3 and kill him with another player. Day 4 dawns with 6 alive, and 3 Mafia. Game over.

Now, maybe Mafia get unlucky and they lose the WIFOM battle shooting in the PR's night 1. Maybe the SK shoots a Mason night 1 and it goes through. It's not foolproof win for Mafia, no. But if I were Mafia, knowing that the setup was at least M-DD-xxxx (thanks to Ashersky's claim), and I knew that my team was 3T/4T strong, I would absolutely 100% claim Mason at this point.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:21:21 pm
I'm just trying to ignore it, I don't feel like analyzing that level of emotion.

Galz, are you basically saying that masons shouldn't claim until there's enough flips that we can be 100% sure of their claim? (Or reasonably close). I'd disagree with that.

Scum claiming masons is awful awful for them. Just terrible. They won't do it d1. There's the risk of a Sk existing and outing one of them, and then their game is basically over. I can't see any circumstance where scum would want to back themselves into that corner -- it's just too big of a risk.

Town masons should claim now rather than later. It helps the Poe now, and I think scum are more likely to want to counterclaim after figuring out wether or not a Sk is in the game.

Responding to the same post separately:

Yes, there are situations where Masons claiming now are beneficial. I haven't gotten to them yet, but I fully intend to. Certainly if we're dealing with a 0T, 1T or 2T scum team, it isn't a fake claim that Mafia can use, and thus is a safe claim for Masons to make. My opposition to Ashersky's demands that they (the Masons, if they exist) need to know exactly the pros and cons of doing so, and shouldn't be guided entirely by some rosy picture of how it'll all play out in towns favor down the line. Because it very well may NOT. And I don't feel that Ashersky has done the job of looking at both sides of the situation, at least publicly in thread, regarding the issue. My intentions, whether he likes it or not, is to do exactly that.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:22:32 pm
My opposition to Ashersky's demands that they (the Masons, if they exist) claim straight away is that [the Masons] need to know exactly the pros and cons of doing so, and shouldn't be guided entirely by some rosy picture of how it'll all play out in towns favor down the line.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:25:01 pm
I don't want to vote Ashersky because I don't think he's scum.  I'm most suspicious of Xerxes' out of all the people voting for him.. it seems like the type of bandwagoning vote that scum would make.

Vote: Xerxes

As I pointed out before, I think that Xerxes is intentionally wagoning just to get a lynch through because that's how new-to-forum-mafia players play D1. Go back and re-read him.

(I'm not claiming this is good per se but I think it's a strong-ish town read on him)

I've noted it as well. I'm not sure that's "new-to-forum-mafia-scum-play", or just "new-to-forum-mafia" play. Scum had N0 chat, yes? I've gotta believe that he would've received tips from some of his scum buddies on how to play if so.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:30:37 pm
I'm just trying to ignore it, I don't feel like analyzing that level of emotion.

Galz, are you basically saying that masons shouldn't claim until there's enough flips that we can be 100% sure of their claim? (Or reasonably close). I'd disagree with that.

Scum claiming masons is awful awful for them. Just terrible. They won't do it d1. There's the risk of a Sk existing and outing one of them, and then their game is basically over. I can't see any circumstance where scum would want to back themselves into that corner -- it's just too big of a risk.

Town masons should claim now rather than later. It helps the Poe now, and I think scum are more likely to want to counterclaim after figuring out wether or not a Sk is in the game.

I guess the bigger issue I'm having here that I'm trying to demonstrate, is that there's a natural biased assumption that "Oh, it would be terrible for them, they'll get caught", when in fact that isn't necessarily the case. Heck, under the scenario where this play makes sense for them (3T/4T), I don't even think it ends badly for them a majority of the time. I think that most of the time it ends in either a scum win, or scum putting town in a hell of a situation. At worst, I think that Mafia can reasonably expect the play to -at least- put them into mylo/lylo. Yes, there are edge cases where they lose straight out, but I think it's exactly that, edge cases. You could argue that it's likewise edge cases where they just straight win, but I think they're more often than not in a far better position late game to try and achieve that straight win than they are in a really bad spot late game trying to stave off defeat.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 01:31:08 pm
I've noted it as well. I'm not sure that's "new-to-forum-mafia-scum-play", or just "new-to-forum-mafia" play. Scum had N0 chat, yes? I've gotta believe that he would've received tips from some of his scum buddies on how to play if so.

Yes, it could be the other. But it's not just the voting pattern, it's also stuff like this post:

I didn't answer because you were right and it's annoying to admit that to someone who voted to lynch you. I went back and checked the records, and I guess it was someone else (I can't see anything Sudgy said that fits that). (yuma, actually) I voted for ta because since I saw yuma, who I thought was innocent argue against him as well. Real life mafia makes it much easier to make a decision. I voted for robz just now because if a random kill helps the town, then I should vote for someone at least so that we end up with a kill, even if I can't see any particular thing he did that's suspicious.

and his entire post history.

It's worth noting that when I floated this idea, yuma had a sort of "OMG YES" reaction that ties them together in a very tiny way. Worth remembering, but I doubt yuma is that obvious.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 01:33:01 pm
I've noted it as well. I'm not sure that's "new-to-forum-mafia-scum-play", or just "new-to-forum-mafia" play. Scum had N0 chat, yes? I've gotta believe that he would've received tips from some of his scum buddies on how to play if so.

Yes, it could be the other. But it's not just the voting pattern, it's also stuff like this post:

I didn't answer because you were right and it's annoying to admit that to someone who voted to lynch you. I went back and checked the records, and I guess it was someone else (I can't see anything Sudgy said that fits that). (yuma, actually) I voted for ta because since I saw yuma, who I thought was innocent argue against him as well. Real life mafia makes it much easier to make a decision. I voted for robz just now because if a random kill helps the town, then I should vote for someone at least so that we end up with a kill, even if I can't see any particular thing he did that's suspicious.

and his entire post history.

It's worth noting that when I floated this idea, yuma had a sort of "OMG YES" reaction that ties them together in a very tiny way. Worth remembering, but I doubt yuma is that obvious.

Indeed. Yuma didn't earn the name invisiyuma for no reason. And earned it was. That said, I know I've seen him in more recent games where he's tried to be much more visible to break that meta. So, kinda null either way on that one.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 01:33:55 pm
Galz, no way I can analyze a post that long on my phone. Ill get to it tonight when I'm on my computer. I appreciate the analysis you're doing though and am looking forward to reading it and replying!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 16, 2013, 02:22:53 pm
I think that, for D1, we should quit trying to figure out the setup (because at this point there's too many angry sticks in the fire on that subject) and focus instead on lynching Mafia.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 04:41:35 pm
Everyone here seems to be painting me with the asshole brush.  That's not really fair as I am literally not allowed to defend myself against Galzria here, even though I have rock solid proof on my side.

The more I say, the bigger the risk I take.  So instead, I have to sit here and take a beating from everyone when they can't know the whole story.

Can any of you see just how frustrating that is?  No one will trust me against Galz and I can't share the real reason you should.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 04:48:36 pm
Everyone here seems to be painting me with the asshole brush.  That's not really fair as I am literally not allowed to defend myself against Galzria here, even though I have rock solid proof on my side.

The more I say, the bigger the risk I take.  So instead, I have to sit here and take a beating from everyone when they can't know the whole story.

Can any of you see just how frustrating that is?  No one will trust me against Galz and I can't share the real reason you should.

Can you see though why that's not unreasonable?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:05:43 pm
Everyone here seems to be painting me with the asshole brush.  That's not really fair as I am literally not allowed to defend myself against Galzria here, even though I have rock solid proof on my side.

The more I say, the bigger the risk I take.  So instead, I have to sit here and take a beating from everyone when they can't know the whole story.

Can any of you see just how frustrating that is?  No one will trust me against Galz and I can't share the real reason you should.

Can you see though why that's not unreasonable?

Robz, it is reasonable to not trust me.  I think it is unreasonable for folks to gang up on me to beat me to a pulp.  Whether they think that's what they are doing, that's how it ends up feeling to the guy who's on an island all alone.

Someone earlier asked me to think about the community.  Man, that's exactly why I'm taking this beating instead of just thwarting it with the information I have.  But protecting everyone else is awfully lonely and thankless.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 05:09:08 pm
Everyone here seems to be painting me with the asshole brush.  That's not really fair as I am literally not allowed to defend myself against Galzria here, even though I have rock solid proof on my side.

The more I say, the bigger the risk I take.  So instead, I have to sit here and take a beating from everyone when they can't know the whole story.

Can any of you see just how frustrating that is?  No one will trust me against Galz and I can't share the real reason you should.

Can you see though why that's not unreasonable?

Robz, it is reasonable to not trust me.  I think it is unreasonable for folks to gang up on me to beat me to a pulp.  Whether they think that's what they are doing, that's how it ends up feeling to the guy who's on an island all alone.

Someone earlier asked me to think about the community.  Man, that's exactly why I'm taking this beating instead of just thwarting it with the information I have.  But protecting everyone else is awfully lonely and thankless.

Okay, I don't think you are being ganged up and beaten to a pulp, honestly. I am being totally objective here. I think a lot of the things you have said have merit. I generally like your thoughts and approach here.

Unfortunately you became so angry--unreasonably, I think--that I am having trouble trusting you. Do you understand that?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 05:09:42 pm
Robz, it is reasonable to not trust me.  I think it is unreasonable for folks to gang up on me to beat me to a pulp.  Whether they think that's what they are doing, that's how it ends up feeling to the guy who's on an island all alone.

Someone earlier asked me to think about the community.  Man, that's exactly why I'm taking this beating instead of just thwarting it with the information I have.  But protecting everyone else is awfully lonely and thankless.

ash, I am currently now siding with Galz, given that you returned and 1) claimed breaking the rules was the only way to earn our trust (presumably by revealing a doctor-ish flavor claim) and 2) writing two big appeal-to-emotion posts.

Now this is playing the game, and it makes me happy. I am very happy playing the game again. However it does give me an actual scum read on you now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 05:22:50 pm
Everyone here seems to be painting me with the asshole brush.  That's not really fair as I am literally not allowed to defend myself against Galzria here, even though I have rock solid proof on my side.

The more I say, the bigger the risk I take.  So instead, I have to sit here and take a beating from everyone when they can't know the whole story.

Can any of you see just how frustrating that is?  No one will trust me against Galz and I can't share the real reason you should.

ash, I side with you in this argument. I don't side with the way you threatened to get yourself modkilled. I will never side with that. But that is beside the point now as it appears you aren't actually intending to do so. Although, you are still self voting (please unvote and go back to voting sudgy, who we both really think is scum).

The point now remains that Galz... our IC... has stated that he would rather not have the Masons, if there are any claim. I think at some point we have to trust our IC a bit and allow him to lead. I certainly disagree with him and everyone else voting for you. Voting for you right now seems to based off your emotion or their emotion to your emotion. I don't think you are scum, I don't think many others think you are scum, and if they do I think they are wayyyyy off base.

So again, let's drop the Mason issue... they aren't going to claim. Our IC doesn't want them to. Whether that is right or not, deal with it. Everyone who is voting for ash should either unvote or state that they actually think that he is the best lynch to hit scum today. I STRONGLY disagree with that sentiment. And let's actually go back to try and find mafia... specifically sudgy and theorel I think need to be looked at even more, along with chairs.

PS: I am not /out any longer as this looks like it is resolving itself... but I am very serious about considering leaving this community as these sorts of issues continue to crop up every single game (involving different players mind you... I am not blaming any specific individual, but rather noting that all of us need a change of behavior... myself included in many respects...)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 05:23:34 pm
I've noted it as well. I'm not sure that's "new-to-forum-mafia-scum-play", or just "new-to-forum-mafia" play. Scum had N0 chat, yes? I've gotta believe that he would've received tips from some of his scum buddies on how to play if so.

Yes, it could be the other. But it's not just the voting pattern, it's also stuff like this post:

I didn't answer because you were right and it's annoying to admit that to someone who voted to lynch you. I went back and checked the records, and I guess it was someone else (I can't see anything Sudgy said that fits that). (yuma, actually) I voted for ta because since I saw yuma, who I thought was innocent argue against him as well. Real life mafia makes it much easier to make a decision. I voted for robz just now because if a random kill helps the town, then I should vote for someone at least so that we end up with a kill, even if I can't see any particular thing he did that's suspicious.

and his entire post history.

It's worth noting that when I floated this idea, yuma had a sort of "OMG YES" reaction that ties them together in a very tiny way. Worth remembering, but I doubt yuma is that obvious.

I am not sure what you are alluding to here... Can you clear that up for me?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:33:29 pm
I do think some of you jumped to the conclusion that I was going to flavor claim to get modkilled on purpose based on a question I asked the mod.  I think that's probably a pro-town reaction to my question, although a crazy conclusion to draw.  Most of you know I honestly believe my own town lynch (or the town lynch of others) can be helpful to town and help town win a lot of the time.  A modkill, though, would take away the wagon, which gives scum an out.  Modkill doesn't help me win.

For the record, the mods answers my question.  If you flavor claim, not only are you modkilled, so is a random member of your faction AND the day goes directly to night.

I recommend to any scum that they flavor claim right now.

I highly recommend town NOT do it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 05:37:43 pm
I'm voting Ash at this time because I think that his play matches that of his scum play more than it does his town play, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, it's a case of the Boy who Cried Wolf with Ash. I've seen him play these exact cards as scum too many times to have any faith in his credibility about being town at this point. And he's never going to stop unless the ploy doesn't work. As town, or as scum.

I recognize that he could be town. But I've enough of a genuine scum read on him over his play to be voting for him. And if I'm wrong then losing a one shot Doctor really isn't that concerning to me. He's got one shot that is as likely to miss as anything else, and we've still got a full Doctor out there that can still protect the people they need to.

I do agree that the issue of Masons can be dropped at this point. They're not claiming, and that's good. If they exist, they're better off staying quiet and either playing their card late when there's no chance they can be lying, or after one is NK'd - there will naturally be enough interaction in thread to clear the other when coming forward.

I do think some of you jumped to the conclusion that I was going to flavor claim to get modkilled on purpose based on a question I asked the mod.  I think that's probably a pro-town reaction to my question, although a crazy conclusion to draw.  Most of you know I honestly believe my own town lynch (or the town lynch of others) can be helpful to town and help town win a lot of the time.  A modkill, though, would take away the wagon, which gives scum an out.  Modkill doesn't help me win.

For the record, the mods answers my question.  If you flavor claim, not only are you modkilled, so is a random member of your faction AND the day goes directly to night.

I recommend to any scum that they flavor claim right now.

I highly recommend town NOT do it.

This made me laugh out loud.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:39:10 pm
I do think some of you jumped to the conclusion that I was going to flavor claim to get modkilled on purpose based on a question I asked the mod.  I think that's probably a pro-town reaction to my question, although a crazy conclusion to draw.  Most of you know I honestly believe my own town lynch (or the town lynch of others) can be helpful to town and help town win a lot of the time.  A modkill, though, would take away the wagon, which gives scum an out.  Modkill doesn't help me win.

For the record, the mods answers my question.  If you flavor claim, not only are you modkilled, so is a random member of your faction AND the day goes directly to night.

I recommend to any scum that they flavor claim right now.

I highly recommend town NOT do it.

This made me laugh out loud.

Which part?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 05:39:25 pm
For the record, the mods answers my question.  If you flavor claim, not only are you modkilled, so is a random member of your faction AND the day goes directly to night.

I will not believe this unless I see a mod post it in-thread.

Ash, now that you've stated it was a gambit officially, I implore you to consider how it is a very unsportsmanlike way to play.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 05:40:52 pm
I am not sure what you are alluding to here... Can you clear that up for me?

First, I currently have a null read on you and absolutely will not lynch you today. I am referring to this:

Xerxes's most recent post gives me a town read on him. This is now other experienced RL mafia players tend to adjust to the forum-based game, even if some of the specifics don't transfer (saying "I'm voting someone just so we have a lynch") etc.

i agree. if you are going to do the who is off the table list thing you do, xerses should be off I think. I don't want to lynch new players day1 (unless specifically in a newbie game)... for a couple of reasons. 1. it is lame 2. new players don't have a meta, obviously, so a newbie lynch is basically a random lynch as we have so little to compare them to 3. later days are better for finding new mafia... se me in MIII and MV. I played great the first few days, but as we got closer to the end game I made critical mistakes as the game became more complex and I didn't have the experience necessary to get me out of situations and was found out 4. there are much better options among our vets.

That said, if something is horribly, blatantly obvious, I will vote for him. And at the same time xerses shouldn't feel safe and secure and not participate today because he isn't getting lynched, because if he does that it will put the spot light on him in later days.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 05:41:12 pm
Eh... Well, we'll see.

Just to make clear:

I don't at all take offense to anything Ashersky has said/done. It's simply a strategy. It's just one that I know he's as capable of playing as town or scum because I've seen him do it as both. There are nuances to each though, and I lean towards scum nuances here over town nuances for reasons I've explained previously. Doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean I'm content with my vote there right now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 05:42:33 pm
I do think some of you jumped to the conclusion that I was going to flavor claim to get modkilled on purpose based on a question I asked the mod.  I think that's probably a pro-town reaction to my question, although a crazy conclusion to draw.  Most of you know I honestly believe my own town lynch (or the town lynch of others) can be helpful to town and help town win a lot of the time.  A modkill, though, would take away the wagon, which gives scum an out.  Modkill doesn't help me win.

For the record, the mods answers my question.  If you flavor claim, not only are you modkilled, so is a random member of your faction AND the day goes directly to night.

I recommend to any scum that they flavor claim right now.

I highly recommend town NOT do it.

This made me laugh out loud.

Which part?

Sorry, not in a sarcastic way at all. The last two lines. They were legitimately funny.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 16, 2013, 05:44:42 pm
Ahh, Cao Cao has arrived! He is here to help keep track of everything. I am glad we have such fantastic generals to keep order. Remember I want you all to decide on who we should kill by nightfall, their are spies here and my plan only works if everyone remains anonymous. Anyone attempting to claim who they are risks their death and the death or one of their friends! No Exceptions!

Vote Count 1.7:

Chairs (1): theorel
Sudgy (3): Twistedarcher, Yuma, Chairs
Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor
XerxesPraelor (2): Eevee, Nkirbit
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
Robz888 (1): sudgy

Not Voting (0):

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:45:26 pm
For the record, the mods answers my question.  If you flavor claim, not only are you modkilled, so is a random member of your faction AND the day goes directly to night.

I will not believe this unless I see a mod post it in-thread.

Ash, now that you've stated it was a gambit officially, I implore you to consider how it is a very unsportsmanlike way to play.

I disagree.  Modkills happen.  They're part of the game.  If I really wanted to get modkilled, I would do it "accidentally" anyway, wouldn't I?  I believe any member of my team should do everything in their power to ensure my team wins.

As an example, do you watch World Cup soccer?  Luis Suarez purposefully broke a rule and was punished for it, but kept Uruguay in the World Cup.  He absolutely did what had to be done to keep his team from being eliminated.  There's no consensus on whether what he did was right, but I don't think you should hold it against me that I think he was a hero in that game.  I apply that belief to all competitive events.  You don't have to, but I'd ask that allow me my beliefs.

Regardless, I don't think we should argue about the sportsmanship or lack thereof of something that isn't happening, and isn't important in this game (unless you want to use it as a reason for my lynch, which is fine, I guess).

As for the answer regarding modkills, I'll ask mcmc to post it when he logs on again.  He even said he would answer in thread if I wanted.  No idea why you don't believe me on that, though?  What incentive do I have to make THAT up?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:45:45 pm
mcmc, since you are here, can you post the answer to the modkill question in thread?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:47:38 pm
It's simply a strategy. It's just one that I know he's as capable of playing as town or scum.

If you ever get annoyed by something I post, reference this.

Maybe I should make it my signature.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 05:49:00 pm
As an example, do you watch World Cup soccer?  Luis Suarez purposefully broke a rule and was punished for it, but kept Uruguay in the World Cup.  He absolutely did what had to be done to keep his team from being eliminated.  There's no consensus on whether what he did was right, but I don't think you should hold it against me that I think he was a hero in that game.  I apply that belief to all competitive events.  You don't have to, but I'd ask that allow me my beliefs.

Regardless, I don't think we should argue about the sportsmanship or lack thereof of something that isn't happening, and isn't important in this game (unless you want to use it as a reason for my lynch, which is fine, I guess).

I can allow you your beliefs, of course, but I have no desire to participate in any competitive event where any player(s) have that mindset. It's not fun for me at all, and I get the sense, most others.

I like to think of this as "casual competitive." Others may call it "respecting the game" (that phrase gets used in baseball).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 05:50:13 pm
It's simply a strategy. It's just one that I know he's as capable of playing as town or scum.

If you ever get annoyed by something I post, reference this.

Maybe I should make it my signature.

I -always- recognize it. Doesn't mean I always like it. :P
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 16, 2013, 05:52:33 pm
I referenced in my last post but will make it explicitly clear. Any flavor related claim or rule break is absolutely forbidden and punishable by modkill. If the rule break is done purposefully or suspected to be done purposefully I will modkill the player and a random teammate then go to night, breaking the rules is something one can chose to do. I am making sure that choice is not a beneficial one.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:56:48 pm
I referenced in my last post but will make it explicitly clear. Any flavor related claim or rule break is absolutely forbidden and punishable by modkill. If the rule break is done purposefully or suspected to be done purposefully I will modkill the player and a random teammate then go to night, breaking the rules is something one can chose to do. I am making sure that choice is not a beneficial one.

Sadly, not every reads the flavor.  I do though!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 05:57:10 pm
As an example, do you watch World Cup soccer?  Luis Suarez purposefully broke a rule and was punished for it, but kept Uruguay in the World Cup.  He absolutely did what had to be done to keep his team from being eliminated.  There's no consensus on whether what he did was right, but I don't think you should hold it against me that I think he was a hero in that game.  I apply that belief to all competitive events.  You don't have to, but I'd ask that allow me my beliefs.

Perhaps a better way to phrase my answer: I'm fine with someone doing everything they can to win within the rules. If the best way to get their team to win involves breaking the rules, they should respect the game and not to do. However, immediately after the game this should be brought up and the rules changed, because there is clearly a flaw (I'm talking generically here, I don't know the soccer situation) with them. Then, in the next game "doing everything they can" doesn't need to include breaking the rules.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 05:59:50 pm
Perhaps a better way to phrase my answer: I'm fine with someone doing everything they can to win within the rules. If the best way to get their team to win involves breaking the rules, they should respect the game and not to do. However, immediately after the game this should be brought up and the rules changed, because there is clearly a flaw (I'm talking generically here, I don't know the soccer situation) with them. Then, in the next game "doing everything they can" doesn't need to include breaking the rules.

That's a fair and respectable belief.

/offers a handshake
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 06:00:32 pm
/offers a handshake

/handshake

I still think you're scum though. Sorry!  :)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 06:06:04 pm
/offers a handshake

/handshake

I still think you're scum though. Sorry!  :)

That's fine.

Maybe a better analogy: I'm like Severus Snape.  I really seem like the bad guy, but turns out I was good all along.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 06:15:26 pm
but why is he scummy... or rather you say "this is something that scum!ash is just as capable of doing as town!ash... so why do you think it is scum!ash over town!ash. What is separating the two to make you want to vote for him?

That I don't feel like I have seen from anyone... I just don't get it. Why are we considering lynching him?

His claim is completely dependent on something that he doesn't know exists... a Doc. Right? So if we get to a point where are believe there is no Doc, we should lynch him. Lynch him then, not now. Now we should lynch someone that doesn't have something by all appearances seems to have a legitimate claim that can be found out down the road....

This seems like people are saying "ash has pulled something like this in the past... he might be pulling something now, even though I don't have any real evidence to show that he is pulling something... better lynch him just to be safe!"

And I disagree with that idea.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 06:23:33 pm
Hey sudgy... instead of posting in the Rules of Mafia thread... how about you post in here what you think of the ashersky situation. You have obviously seen it... but haven't said anything about it in this thread.

Do you think he is scummy or townie or somewhere inbetween for what just went down?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 16, 2013, 07:18:23 pm
Hey sudgy... instead of posting in the Rules of Mafia thread... how about you post in here what you think of the ashersky situation. You have obviously seen it... but haven't said anything about it in this thread.

Do you think he is scummy or townie or somewhere inbetween for what just went down?

I posted in the rules of mafia thread a generic idea, not this case, but anyway, I've been mulling it over, and in the end, it reads null.  Ash is like this, like it or not, and I'll have to find another way to read him.  I do still stand by my statement that we shouldn't lynch him today since if he's town we've lynched a PR (and we can lynch him after he uses his doc if we think he's scum).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 07:25:37 pm
Hey sudgy... instead of posting in the Rules of Mafia thread... how about you post in here what you think of the ashersky situation. You have obviously seen it... but haven't said anything about it in this thread.

Do you think he is scummy or townie or somewhere inbetween for what just went down?

I posted in the rules of mafia thread a generic idea, not this case, but anyway, I've been mulling it over, and in the end, it reads null.  Ash is like this, like it or not, and I'll have to find another way to read him.  I do still stand by my statement that we shouldn't lynch him today since if he's town we've lynched a PR (and we can lynch him after he uses his doc if we think he's scum).

Cool... what do you think of the people who are voting for him and are saying that he should be today's lynch?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 07:28:45 pm
unvote
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 07:30:07 pm
Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

This is the wagon in yuma's question, btw.

Robz was on before the whole thing.  Galz joined during, but for stated reasons other than the kerfluffle.  I'm gone.

So it's voltaire and Xerxes.

Voltaire claims a scum read on me post-kerfluffle based on Galz's argument that I could be doing it as scum, and for me toning it down.  Xerxes gave no reason other than being annoyed.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 07:34:18 pm
Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

This is the wagon in yuma's question, btw.

Robz was on before the whole thing.  Galz joined during, but for stated reasons other than the kerfluffle.  I'm gone.

So it's voltaire and Xerxes.

Voltaire claims a scum read on me post-kerfluffle based on Galz's argument that I could be doing it as scum, and for me toning it down.  Xerxes gave no reason other than being annoyed.

I think Robz needs to be questioned as well as he continued to stay on your wagon throughout all of this... when before he stated that his vote on you was "silly."

I can't imagine he left it there so he must agree with something people have said about you... Right?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 16, 2013, 07:55:33 pm
Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

This is the wagon in yuma's question, btw.

Robz was on before the whole thing.  Galz joined during, but for stated reasons other than the kerfluffle.  I'm gone.

So it's voltaire and Xerxes.

Voltaire claims a scum read on me post-kerfluffle based on Galz's argument that I could be doing it as scum, and for me toning it down.  Xerxes gave no reason other than being annoyed.
Hm. In HP, I (scum) voted you (town) because I was "annoyed." Something to look at later, I don't think xp should be the lynch today.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 16, 2013, 08:10:16 pm
Xerxes gets a newbie pass, I would say, and Voltaire I'm not too sure about.  Skimming through his first bit in MXXIX where he was scum, he seemed to vote people based on one post, and it was always him doing it.  I haven't looked at a town game of his though.  (I'm leaving in five minutes somewhere)

Robz keeping his vote on a wagon is a bit suspicious like that, that raises his suspicion in my eyes a bit.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 08:19:31 pm
Galz, I don't really agree with you but I'm also willing to drop it unless you'd like to hear what I have to say. I'm not going to convince you and ultimately your opinion matters more than mine here.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 08:47:32 pm
Yep sure, I can explain.

Initially, my vote for ashersky was a silly vote. I had not read the whole thread, I only gathered that he had claimed, which irritated me, but I didn't know the full context. I knew he wasn't in danger though, so it's between a policy vote and a just plain silly vote.

Having actually read the thread, I no longer believed ashersky's actions were bad. I see what he was doing in claiming. I actually thought I had unvoted or switched votes at that point, but it seems not.

Then, ashersky's outrage at Galz read weird and fake to me. Well, not fake exactly, but like there's something else afoot. I know ashersky has feigned anger and threatening behavior for the sake of a plot. In this case, I agree with Galz that it seems scummy. So I was happy to have my vote on ashersky, actually.

At this point, I don't really think he's the best lynch, and I've agreed with a lot of his strategy. I just think his attitude recently reads scummy. So anyway, I'll probably move my vote, but I don't know whether yet.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 16, 2013, 08:53:18 pm
Galz, I don't really agree with you but I'm also willing to drop it unless you'd like to hear what I have to say. I'm not going to convince you and ultimately your opinion matters more than mine here.

I'm more than open to hearing alternate opinions, as long as they're supported.

Essentially, what you really need to address is the idea that from a random townie perspective, I see no distinguishing characteristics that separate two players claiming Mason in the following two combination of scenarios:

MMMDDTT // MDDTTTT

MMMDDTx // MDDTTTx

Granted the second is more risky for scum due to there being an SK, but I see no appreciable difference between the first set that is in any way threatening to scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 16, 2013, 09:04:30 pm
Basically my read on ash is "what Galz (and later Robz)" said. Ash clearly went over-the-top in talking to Galz, and was clearly running a crazy gambit. It's the fact that his interactions with Galz in no way escalated "normally". He also did this at the start of the game, with his whole "shoot me in the fucking head" comment (to theorel? TA?). I bet he was trying to escalate stuff back then, too, and it didn't quite take off. That was crazy and out of the blue, too.

He was also clearly implying he was going to flavor claim and get modkilled, too. Pretending he wasn't is ridiculous. I agree with Galz's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", too. It's like when ash self-voted in whatever game it was and no-one commented. It was just ash.

Here it realllllllllllllllllly feels like ash is "forcing" being himself. Going from 1 to 11, making appeals to emotion, advocating bad claiming, etc. (and by that I mean the cop, not the mason).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 09:06:01 pm
The main issue is that scum don't know if they're in the first set or the second set. They can't be sure that there's no serial killer. Therefore, claiming masons is incredibly risky, risky enough that it doesn't make any sense for do them. Essentially it's a 50/50 shot on whether there's a Serial Killer, and that 50% chance is not enough to bet your entire game on. That's the core of why I disagree with you.

I disagree on the likelihood of this being an "edge case", as you've described it. It's a 50/50 shot, and if there's a SK in the game, he's going to shoot at the claimed masons either N1 or N2.

I also don't think that another power role should claim, in the case of it being MDDTTTX. Keeping that last power role hidden to keep mafia guessing on the SK is definitely the best position. There's no way a mass claim is optimal.

If there ARE masons, that means that, after they claim, if all claims are correct, we have MMMDDXX. Dealing with a Goon/Roleblocker/Godfather team, with 33% chance of a SK (probably not 33% chance, but close enough, heh, not doing the math). Once again, though, there should be no call for claims, so yeah.

I didn't see you answer my post on trying to hide the fact on whether or not there's a Serial Killer, as that knowledge benefits mafia even more than it benefits town. What are your thoughts on that line of thinking? Basically, we shouldn't push for a vig claim if we end up with two kills, and we should leave mafia guessing as to whether the extra kill was from town or from a SK.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 09:07:27 pm
Basically, I just don't think the odds are in mafia's flavor to claim masons, therefore they won't. So town masons should claim. But I guess everytime I'm saying this I make it more favorable for mafia to fakeclaim, so I'll let it go.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 09:08:31 pm
Here it realllllllllllllllllly feels like ash is "forcing" being himself. Going from 1 to 11, making appeals to emotion, advocating bad claiming, etc. (and by that I mean the cop, not the mason).

Yeah, exactly. Although I could see town!ash trying to hard to act like town!ash and coming off like fake town!ash, which might be what happened here/
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 09:11:23 pm
Basically my read on ash is "what Galz (and later Robz)" said. Ash clearly went over-the-top in talking to Galz, and was clearly running a crazy gambit. It's the fact that his interactions with Galz in no way escalated "normally". He also did this at the start of the game, with his whole "shoot me in the fucking head" comment (to theorel? TA?). I bet he was trying to escalate stuff back then, too, and it didn't quite take off. That was crazy and out of the blue, too.

He was also clearly implying he was going to flavor claim and get modkilled, too. Pretending he wasn't is ridiculous. I agree with Galz's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", too. It's like when ash self-voted in whatever game it was and no-one commented. It was just ash.

Here it realllllllllllllllllly feels like ash is "forcing" being himself. Going from 1 to 11, making appeals to emotion, advocating bad claiming, etc. (and by that I mean the cop, not the mason).

Ok.... I get this... But let's look at what ash has claimed. He claimed a 1-shot Doc. For there to be a 1-shot Doc there has to be a Doc. Yes? I am correct about this yes?

So if there has to be a Doc for him to not be lying, if there isn't a Doc he is lying and is scum. Therefore we can use that knowledge to determine if he is scum or not. Rather than trying to second guess whether or not ash is scum based off his emotions and gambits or whatever. Because those are never going to be better than 50/50. Because scum!ash and town!ash are both capable of doing it.

So if we get to a point where we mass claim and no Doctor comes forward... dun, dun, dun... we lynch ash. Simple. Why not wait until that point to consider lynching ash. why potentially waste a lynch on him when he could very easily be town (and a claimed PR for that matter) when we can discover if he is later. Let's use today's lynch on someone else that we aren't currently capable of finding out on a later day...

Like sudgy... or theorel... or just about anyone else for that matter.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 09:12:13 pm
I think Ash is town because of the claim, and I think his takes on theory have been pretty reasonable. I'm not even attempting to analyze the emotion, as it's head-spinning and it resulted in me playing poorly as town last time I got caught up in it.

PPE: Yuma speaks sense
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 09:12:20 pm
what I am saying is that when you put what ash has claimed and his "antics" I strongly believe that his claim trumps his antics. Because his claim can be used for or against him later in the game whereas his antics are never going to be anything more than people's opinions about them...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 09:18:15 pm
I'm happy to be voting Yuma. What's the case on Theorel, Yuma?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 09:18:23 pm
to be voting Sudgy**
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 09:45:05 pm
I'm happy to be voting Yumasudgy. What's the case on Theorel, Yuma?

What is the Theo case?

How's a mail-mi lynch sound?  Other than overdone?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 16, 2013, 09:47:04 pm
Mail-mi usually sets off alarm bells when he's scum, which I haven't seen here.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 16, 2013, 09:53:36 pm
Mail-mi usually sets off alarm bells when he's scum, which I haven't seen here.

Well, he's barely said anything. Seriously, he's said absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 10:08:34 pm
What's the case on Theorel, Yuma?

There isn't necessarily a case. Like I said I do think that theorel is the most likely to be sudgy's partner, if sudgy is scum. But that doesn't mean that he should be lynched for that before we know sudgy's alignment. That sort of backwards logic almost never works. If a case on him is made up, and maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't, it should be made independent of his potential to be sudgy's partner (at least until we know sudgy's alignment obviously).

But rather that I think he is on the scummier side of things (or at least the shouldn't be lynched today side of things)... compared to say, ash, xerxes and I would argue nkirbit... and when I typed in sudgy he was the first person to pop into my mind as potential alternate lynches to ashersky.

I far and away prefer sudgy at this point. But far and away don't prefer ashersky at this point. They are like polar opposites.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 16, 2013, 10:16:59 pm
so are we doing a thursday soft deadline or a friday? Which one did Galz settle on? I don't think we are close to being at a lynch where things currently stand for a thursday softdeadline... but a friday does put us at only having the weekend to work with, which I guess isn't horrible, but not super ideal as availability decreases pretty dramatically...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 16, 2013, 10:47:30 pm
I'm happy to be voting Yumasudgy. What's the case on Theorel, Yuma?

What is the Theo case?

How's a mail-mi lynch sound?  Other than overdone?
Absolutely terrible. Sorry for the absence, I've had a lot of homework recently. I'll do stuff when I can.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 16, 2013, 11:10:19 pm
vote: mail-mi

This is an acti-lurking uh-oh post:

I'm happy to be voting Yumasudgy. What's the case on Theorel, Yuma?

What is the Theo case?

How's a mail-mi lynch sound?  Other than overdone?
Absolutely terrible. Sorry for the absence, I've had a lot of homework recently. I'll do stuff when I can.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 17, 2013, 12:59:11 am
Yuma, what's the difference between these two setups?:

MMMDDTT
MMMTTTT

The difference, obviously, are Doctors (and which scum are in the game).

Here's another difference: Scum know which set they rolled (but not exactly how many). If they rolled 3T/4T, and then they saw my reveal, they already know that the setup is at least M-TTT-xxx, with ~50% chance of it being M-TTTT-xx.

The odds that both of those x's (or 2 of 3) hitting DD are relatively slim, yes? But the odds of a single one hitting aren't that bad (not great. 10% per roll).

Now, that makes fake claiming 1-shot-Doctor relatively safe in itself. Chances are you won't get counter-claimed. Further, if one of those x's came up with a single D, you're in great shape, because now you've got town supporting your roll. But let's look at the downside. What if nobody claims Doctor down the line when we mass claim. You're dead to rights... Right?

Not if one of your partners claims Doctor. Now you've got support for your claim. Now you've told the world that the setup is MDDxxxx. And heck, 2/3 of your scumteam with 3T/4T match a 0T-2T team. So you generally don't mind town thinking the setup is MDDTTxx.

My point is that if Ash is on a scum team with 3T/4T - or hell, any scum member is on such a team... If we're dealing with that team, there's a LOT of fake claim room, that produce equally viable setups, but replace T's that scum know exist with basically anything else. In Ash's case, as an early claim, claiming something that requires another letter makes sense. It reduces the odds you'll be counter-claimed while buying you the maximum town credit, and if, down the line, you come to find out your requisite letter isn't in the game then there's still room to play. It's not an auto lynch.

Ultimately I think people FAR underestimate what scum will do. They've got a vast amount of information. Much more by far than we do. And to dismiss what they're capable of because you don't think it's likely is detrimental.

I don't think this is at all a compelling reason to believe that Ash is lying. I think that dismissing it as a non-viable claim for scum to make is ridiculous. You're opening yourself up to scum toying with you all the way to end game.

Ashersky, this isn't me trying to shut people down, it's me saying "look, the situation isn't as straightforward as you paint it. Don't just blindly believe and follow things because they're easy. Consider the situations where scum would make that move". Maybe it's not likely, but it's still worth noting and discussing, instead of just writing off.

A vigilant town is a strong town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 01:19:43 am
I would be fine lynching Robz or mail-mi at this point, and could be lead to other people as well if a strong enough case is made on them.  I'm not doing too great reads-wise.

And TA, what exactly are your reasons for voting me?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 17, 2013, 10:10:37 am
I want a sudgy or TA Lynch, won't do mail-mi, Galz, ash, Yuma (the last two might change) and might do pretty much anyone else.

vote: mail-mi

This is an acti-lurking uh-oh post:

I'm happy to be voting Yumasudgy. What's the case on Theorel, Yuma?

What is the Theo case?

How's a mail-mi lynch sound?  Other than overdone?
Absolutely terrible. Sorry for the absence, I've had a lot of homework recently. I'll do stuff when I can.
You know what I hate? When people have IRL legit reasons to be gone and people get voted/lunched over it. I would policy vote you now if I didn't think you were town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 17, 2013, 10:11:05 am
I would be fine lynching Robz or mail-mi at this point, and could be lead to other people as well if a strong enough case is made on them.  I'm not doing too great reads-wise.

And TA, what exactly are your reasons for voting me?

You are focused on seeming pro-town, not doing actually pro town things (like scum hunting). You are now more convinced with saving yourself than finding scum, and you are only looking at your wagon exclusively for scum. My original mini case is still valid.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 17, 2013, 10:19:51 am
Okay, I'm still trying to figure things out.  I really dislike ashersky's threat of "I'm going to do everything in my power to make town lose".  Followed by "I'm always trying to make my team win, breaking rules to make my team win is just how I play the game" to defend his threat of getting himself mod-killed.

This just seems so much like the scum-ash gambit of mean-girls where he went and /outed from all his games when his claim was disbelieved.

I felt like Voltaire's argument was valid yesterday, when he wanted to vote ash simply for the behavior.  I wanted to see what ash said when he came back.  Annd, it seems scummy to me.  I mean his initial couple posts holding to the whole "I can't break the game, because it'd get me modkilled" thing sounded townie.  But then he switched to, "I'm always working towards my teams win-con, I never actually wanted to get modkilled."  It's broken, the townie stuff doesn't fit.  He was never really frustratedly wanting to kill himself to prove his point, he just pretended to.  I dunno, lies lies everywhere...I don't like lying town, pretending town.  It's anti-town, it distracts everyone from scum-hunting.  How are we supposed to find the difference between scum and town, when town itself is lying?  I'm fully of the opinion that deception does NOT help town.

But, he did self-vote.  He's still not done it before as scum, nor not done it as town.  It's so over-the-top, that maybe he's faking it because he's concerned about that side of his meta being exploited.  I've mentioned it every game so far, so he does know that he can use it to manipulate me at least.  But, until I see otherwise, I'm going to play as though it's entirely indicative of his alignment.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 10:58:52 am
Galz... you are using too many "ifs" for me to be comfortable with this:

For the suspicions of ash to be valid it appears that scum have to have rolled 3Ts or 4Ts. That is a big if. You are leaving out the chance of having 0T, 1T, 2T.

After that you have to assume that ash is lying. That is also a pretty big if I think.

I am not saying we should just let ash live forever and ever if we continue to lack information that proves that he is town. at that point we should start to become suspicious enough to lynch. But right now we have the potential (I am not saying we are for sure going to find out, we might not...) to learn whether he is being true or not... So let's give that potential a chance to make itself known to us and lynch someone who doesn't have that potential right now. If ash doesn't make himself out to be true later... then we can discuss lynching him.

I feel like you are letting a bias get in the way of the facts that are presented/the facts that may be presented in the future.

What do you think of sudgy? I don't think I have heard your opinion on anyone in this game so far except about ash...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 11:48:59 am
I would be fine lynching Robz or mail-mi at this point, and could be lead to other people as well if a strong enough case is made on them.  I'm not doing too great reads-wise.

And TA, what exactly are your reasons for voting me?

You are focused on seeming pro-town, not doing actually pro town things (like scum hunting). You are now more convinced with saving yourself than finding scum, and you are only looking at your wagon exclusively for scum. My original mini case is still valid.

As I said before, I never try to be pro-town, no matter what the faction I'm on is.  The way you're going to catch me is through other things.  I haven't been scum hunting because I'm still having a hard time reading people.  I haven't been looking at my wagon for scum, I'm voting Robz.  I looked at my wagon because it was the only big thing, and yuma asked me to.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 12:22:57 pm
I'm not thrilled about it, but I don't see myself realistic voting for anyone else, so Vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 17, 2013, 12:33:19 pm
Still happy with my vote on sudgy.

In fact, more happy when he contradicted his earlier post about always trying to be pro-town when he says this:

I would be fine lynching Robz or mail-mi at this point, and could be lead to other people as well if a strong enough case is made on them.  I'm not doing too great reads-wise.

And TA, what exactly are your reasons for voting me?

You are focused on seeming pro-town, not doing actually pro town things (like scum hunting). You are now more convinced with saving yourself than finding scum, and you are only looking at your wagon exclusively for scum. My original mini case is still valid.

As I said before, I never try to be pro-town, no matter what the faction I'm on is.  The way you're going to catch me is through other things.  I haven't been scum hunting because I'm still having a hard time reading people.  I haven't been looking at my wagon for scum, I'm voting Robz.  I looked at my wagon because it was the only big thing, and yuma asked me to.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 12:42:40 pm
Still happy with my vote on sudgy.

In fact, more happy when he contradicted his earlier post about always trying to be pro-town when he says this:

As I have said countless times before, in this game and other games, ACTING LIKE TOWN DOES NOT MEAN ACTING PRO TOWN.  I WAS SAYING I ALWAYS ACT LIKE MY TOWN SELF WHEN SCUM, NOT DOING PRO TOWN THINGS.  If you want to vote for me over something that I've said AS TOWN, go ahead, but you'll feel stupid.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 12:43:03 pm
Is there any other reasons for your vote?  And Robz's too?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 12:46:28 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 12:47:09 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.

You're panicking a little early here, friend. You've got what, four votes?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 12:48:25 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.

You're panicking a little early here, friend. You've got what, four votes?

I thought I had more than that...  And nobody else is even close.  I want to get everybody off of me sooner rather than later (if at all possible) so we have more time to catch scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 12:52:07 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.

You're panicking a little early here, friend. You've got what, four votes?

I thought I had more than that...  And nobody else is even close.  I want to get everybody off of me sooner rather than later (if at all possible) so we have more time to catch scum.

Then stay away from the hyperbole.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 12:53:00 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.

You're panicking a little early here, friend. You've got what, four votes?

I thought I had more than that...  And nobody else is even close.  I want to get everybody off of me sooner rather than later (if at all possible) so we have more time to catch scum.

Then stay away from the hyperbole.

?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 12:58:10 pm
vote count please
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 01:01:04 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.

You're panicking a little early here, friend. You've got what, four votes?

I thought I had more than that...  And nobody else is even close.  I want to get everybody off of me sooner rather than later (if at all possible) so we have more time to catch scum.

Then stay away from the hyperbole.

?

Hyperbole is exaggeration. There's no way your lynch would be the worst lynch ever. More to the point, it's not certain you will be lynched, and you should try to dissuade us from lynching you in some manner other than threats.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 17, 2013, 01:02:23 pm
What insolence!  I returned to my tent just now to find that a camp aide had clumsily spilled ink all over my last journal entry, completely obliterating it!  For his "efforts," I have ordered him to "test" the lynching mechanism set up to be used by the end of the day.  If there is any man who can accidentally break something that the capital's engineers claim to be "foolproof," this fool is it.

I hear that the other warlords have stopped yelling at each other quite so loudly as they were before.  Whether that speaks of compromise or of exhaustion, I cannot yet say. 

Ah, and one of them just shouted "vote count please."  Demanding, are we?  I'll vote your count!!

-- excerpted from the journals of Cao Cao

Vote Count 1.7:

chairs (1): theorel
sudgy (4): Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs, Robz888
ashersky (3): Galzria, voltaire, XerxesPraelor
XerxesPraelor (2): Eevee, nkirbit
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
Robz888 (1): sudgy
mail-mi (1): ashersky

Not Voting (0):

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 17, 2013, 01:04:42 pm
Cao Cao is an excellent general but has a little trouble counting sometimes when in a rage.  The above should be "Vote Count 1.8."
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 17, 2013, 01:09:25 pm
I don't remember sudgy acting like this in lotr2.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:11:00 pm
I don't remember sudgy acting like this in lotr2.

What was his alignment?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 17, 2013, 01:11:37 pm
I don't remember sudgy acting like this in lotr2.

What was his alignment?

Town, he was the d1 lynch
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:13:42 pm
I don't remember sudgy acting like this in lotr2.

What was his alignment?

Town, he was the d1 lynch

The only reason I have been hesitating is because it feels so cheap (and easy) to mislynch the "obvious" players. Like sudgy, who claims he does not try to help out the town.  :o On the other hand, sometimes these players are scum (mail-mi in HP). vote: sudgy.

That's L-2.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 01:21:44 pm
The reason I'm reacting differently to this lynch is because I've tried other things, and gotten lynched.

Like sudgy, who claims he does not try to help out the town.  :o

Where was this?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:28:36 pm
As I said before, I never try to be pro-town, no matter what the faction I'm on is.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 01:30:55 pm
As I said before, I never try to be pro-town, no matter what the faction I'm on is.

I still try to help town win, but I don't actively try to act "pro-town", whatever that means.  More, I don't try make myself look like town, that's what I usually see as pro-town.

You know what, Vote: chairs, he seems to be trying to push the easy mislynch, especially when in his last post he said that he has more confirmation for his vote with something I've already rebutted.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 01:37:51 pm
Unvote

So, I believe sudgy, I guess. Who came aboard? Voltaire. Who I had mega suspicion of much earlier.

Vote: Voltaire
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:42:08 pm
Unvote

So, I believe sudgy, I guess. Who came aboard? Voltaire. Who I had mega suspicion of much earlier.

Vote: Voltaire

Wait, what? Sudgy made one post since you last posted. What part of it changed your mind?

Or is it the fact that I voted for sudgy? I'd announced "intent to vote" on him ages ago, prior to the whole modkill brouhaha.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:42:40 pm
Wait, what? Sudgy made two posts since you last posted. What part of it changed your mind?

fixed
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 01:43:47 pm
Unvote

So, I believe sudgy, I guess. Who came aboard? Voltaire. Who I had mega suspicion of much earlier.

Vote: Voltaire

Wait, what? Sudgy made one post since you last posted. What part of it changed your mind?

Or is it the fact that I voted for sudgy? I'd announced "intent to vote" on him ages ago, prior to the whole modkill brouhaha.

No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:44:42 pm
No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

You know what makes this game impossible? When town lies.

Why me instead of Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 01:46:00 pm
No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

You know what makes this game impossible? When town lies.

Why me instead of Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs?

You put an emoticon in your vote explanation post.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 17, 2013, 01:47:01 pm
No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

You know what makes this game impossible? When town lies.

Why me instead of Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs?

You put an emoticon in your vote explanation post.

HA!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:48:32 pm
You put an emoticon in your vote explanation post.

Have you ever gone back and figured out if that is true, post-games?

It's impossible for me to get a handle on this game because there are so many players who appear to be playing intentionally anti-town that I can't have reads on anybody. (intentional hyperbole referencing frustration with ash, Robz, sudgy as I doubt those three are the scum team)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 01:49:12 pm
Unvote

So, I believe sudgy, I guess. Who came aboard? Voltaire. Who I had mega suspicion of much earlier.

Vote: Voltaire

I hate these sort of "gambits"... the never work. This coming from me, who tried one in MIX on sparky... I voted for him to see who would join, turns out only town joined because it was a damn good case on scum! But no... I was convinced it was the people joining the wagon who were scum...

These sort of things don't work and I think robz should know better than to try and use them...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 01:49:52 pm
Unvote

So, I believe sudgy, I guess. Who came aboard? Voltaire. Who I had mega suspicion of much earlier.

Vote: Voltaire

Wait, what? Sudgy made one post since you last posted. What part of it changed your mind?

Or is it the fact that I voted for sudgy? I'd announced "intent to vote" on him ages ago, prior to the whole modkill brouhaha.

No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

LAME!!!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 01:50:05 pm
You put an emoticon in your vote explanation post.

Have you ever gone back and figured out if that is true, post-games?

It's impossible for me to get a handle on this game because there are so many players who appear to be playing intentionally anti-town that I can't have reads on anybody. (intentional hyperbole referencing frustration with ash, Robz, sudgy as I doubt those three are the scum team)

Eevee in Mafia 3!

Speaking of which , where is the Pokemon?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:52:53 pm
Eevee in Mafia 3!

Speaking of which , where is the Pokemon?

And Eevee has been town who used emoticons in how many games?

You used a dumb gambit to confirmation-bias yourself into voting for me. Voltaire is  >:(.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 01:53:57 pm
Completely ok with a chairs lynch if all the sudgy and ash voters claim they're all lying. Would rather still lynch sudgy or ash.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 02:22:37 pm
No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

You know what makes this game impossible? When town lies.

Why me instead of Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs?

So you're saying that you know robz is town?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 02:32:07 pm
No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

You know what makes this game impossible? When town lies.

Why me instead of Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs?

So you're saying that you know robz is town?

that is obviously not what he is saying...

town can refer to both the alignment "town" as well as town, as in everyone playing in this "town"... all 13 players

as in "jeez... this town is being crazy today"
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 17, 2013, 03:12:58 pm
No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

You know what makes this game impossible? When town lies.

Why me instead of Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs?

So you're saying that you know robz is town?

I had this exact same reaction. And it's the second time he's done this today.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 03:23:36 pm
No, I kind of believed sudgy the whole time. Wanted to see who would vote for him, though. And intent to votes are scummy.

You know what makes this game impossible? When town lies.

Why me instead of Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs?

So you're saying that you know robz is town?

I had this exact same reaction. And it's the second time he's done this today.

what is he supposed to say?

"You know what makes this game impossible? When someone of unknown alignment that could potentially be either town or scum (I don't know which they are because I am town and have no knowledge of anyone else's alignment) lie?"

Yeah... that just rolls off the fingertips...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 03:43:15 pm
wut yuma said
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 03:45:57 pm
Also, I was insanely tempted to vote Robz, because I think his play recently has been anti-town, but I held myself back because anti-town != scum, and Robz plays this way regularly. Which is frustrating, so I went with expressing the frustration instead. Unfortunately the entire thing is a nulltell on Robz, which is said. I would prefer to have solidified a townread on him, or something.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:06:23 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 17, 2013, 04:07:58 pm
Also, I was insanely tempted to vote Robz, because I think his play recently has been anti-town, but I held myself back because anti-town != scum, and Robz plays this way regularly. Which is frustrating, so I went with expressing the frustration instead. Unfortunately the entire thing is a nulltell on Robz, which is said. I would prefer to have solidified a townread on him, or something.

I can empathize with this.  I've repeatedly felt like there's so much anti-town play happening in these frustratration-inspired posts that I'm almost at self-voting levels of annoyed.  I'm not willing to give up on Town winning this on D1, but I think we're doing our best to try not to win, I think.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 04:08:34 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 04:12:43 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

Other than me, who would you want to lynch? What do you think about ash at this point?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:14:08 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:15:40 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

Other than me, who would you want to lynch? What do you think about ash at this point?

Ash is narrowly more likely scum than town, I think, but I don't want to lynch him.

I'd lynch lurker!Eevee.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 04:15:46 pm
Chairs, why are you still voting me when what you quoted was not a contradiction?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 04:17:07 pm
Ash is narrowly more likely scum than town, I think, but I don't want to lynch him.

And when/what made that change? Particularly the "don't want to lynch him" part.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:19:28 pm
Ash is narrowly more likely scum than town, I think, but I don't want to lynch him.

And when/what made that change? Particularly the "don't want to lynch him" part.

Well, he's a claimed PR, right? So there are bigger consequences to mislynching him, and we're going to be more confident on him tomorrow. Thus the "don't want to lynch him," part.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 04:20:48 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 04:22:45 pm
Well, he's a claimed PR, right? So there are bigger consequences to mislynching him, and we're going to be more confident on him tomorrow. Thus the "don't want to lynch him," part.

But you were voting for him for a very long time after he claimed 1-shot doc. It's ok if your thinking changed, but like yuma just said, why did it change?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:22:51 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 04:23:31 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:23:56 pm
Well, he's a claimed PR, right? So there are bigger consequences to mislynching him, and we're going to be more confident on him tomorrow. Thus the "don't want to lynch him," part.

But you were voting for him for a very long time after he claimed 1-shot doc. It's ok if your thinking changed, but like yuma just said, why did it change?

Which of the two posts where I explained my position re:ashersky would you like me to re quote for you?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:24:54 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz

Yep, I'm vaguely answering your question because I am scum, I'm sure that's just what scum!Robz would do...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 04:26:15 pm
Which of the two posts where I explained my position re:ashersky would you like me to re quote for you?

The one where you explain why you left your vote on him for a long time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 04:26:24 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz

Yep, I'm vaguely answering your question because I am scum, I'm sure that's just what scum!Robz would do...

scum!Robz is capable of anything... but thanks for verifying that you are in fact being vague. Why are you being vague?

/in before you say "because I feel like it"
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:27:39 pm
For Voltaire:

Yep sure, I can explain.

Initially, my vote for ashersky was a silly vote. I had not read the whole thread, I only gathered that he had claimed, which irritated me, but I didn't know the full context. I knew he wasn't in danger though, so it's between a policy vote and a just plain silly vote.

Having actually read the thread, I no longer believed ashersky's actions were bad. I see what he was doing in claiming. I actually thought I had unvoted or switched votes at that point, but it seems not.

Then, ashersky's outrage at Galz read weird and fake to me. Well, not fake exactly, but like there's something else afoot. I know ashersky has feigned anger and threatening behavior for the sake of a plot. In this case, I agree with Galz that it seems scummy. So I was happy to have my vote on ashersky, actually.

At this point, I don't really think he's the best lynch, and I've agreed with a lot of his strategy. I just think his attitude recently reads scummy. So anyway, I'll probably move my vote, but I don't know whether yet.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:29:42 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz

Yep, I'm vaguely answering your question because I am scum, I'm sure that's just what scum!Robz would do...

scum!Robz is capable of anything... but thanks for verifying that you are in fact being vague. Why are you being vague?

/in before you say "because I feel like it"

Look man, sudgy got really panicky early and unnecessarily, and made comments that his lynch would be the worst thing ever, and I more often see this kind of unwarranted panic and woe-is-me-this-game-is-already-lost-if-you-lynch-me from town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 04:32:02 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz

Yep, I'm vaguely answering your question because I am scum, I'm sure that's just what scum!Robz would do...

scum!Robz is capable of anything... but thanks for verifying that you are in fact being vague. Why are you being vague?

/in before you say "because I feel like it"

Look man, sudgy got really panicky early and unnecessarily, and made comments that his lynch would be the worst thing ever, and I more often see this kind of unwarranted panic and woe-is-me-this-game-is-already-lost-if-you-lynch-me from town.

Look, MAN, that is all I wanted. I don't know it took you four posts and a vote on you to get you to finally explain it... But thanks, for finally getting there.

vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:32:52 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz

Yep, I'm vaguely answering your question because I am scum, I'm sure that's just what scum!Robz would do...

scum!Robz is capable of anything... but thanks for verifying that you are in fact being vague. Why are you being vague?

/in before you say "because I feel like it"

Look man, sudgy got really panicky early and unnecessarily, and made comments that his lynch would be the worst thing ever, and I more often see this kind of unwarranted panic and woe-is-me-this-game-is-already-lost-if-you-lynch-me from town.

Look, MAN, that is all I wanted. I don't know it took you four posts and a vote on you to get you to finally explain it... But thanks, for finally getting there.

vote: sudgy

Why do you disagree?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 04:33:47 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz

Yep, I'm vaguely answering your question because I am scum, I'm sure that's just what scum!Robz would do...

scum!Robz is capable of anything... but thanks for verifying that you are in fact being vague. Why are you being vague?

/in before you say "because I feel like it"

Look man, sudgy got really panicky early and unnecessarily, and made comments that his lynch would be the worst thing ever, and I more often see this kind of unwarranted panic and woe-is-me-this-game-is-already-lost-if-you-lynch-me from town.

Look, MAN, that is all I wanted. I don't know it took you four posts and a vote on you to get you to finally explain it... But thanks, for finally getting there.

vote: sudgy

Why do you disagree?

my reading of his actions
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 04:34:57 pm
my reading of his actions

 ;D
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 04:35:15 pm
Voltaire was caught red-handed piling on sudgy, who I expected to be a mislynch. And he should have expected it too. In fact he did, he sort of even noted it and then just went ahead. Very scummy.

why is sudgy a mislynch... Your whole hypothesis rests on sudgy being a mislynch. This has not been proven.

this logic is just as faulty as me hypothesizing that theorel is scum because he could fit the role as sudgy's partner. Both rely on information we don't have....

I buy that sudgy is town.

Why

My reading of his actions.

oh, thanks... that explains everything... vote: robz

Yep, I'm vaguely answering your question because I am scum, I'm sure that's just what scum!Robz would do...

scum!Robz is capable of anything... but thanks for verifying that you are in fact being vague. Why are you being vague?

/in before you say "because I feel like it"

Look man, sudgy got really panicky early and unnecessarily, and made comments that his lynch would be the worst thing ever, and I more often see this kind of unwarranted panic and woe-is-me-this-game-is-already-lost-if-you-lynch-me from town.

Look, MAN, that is all I wanted. I don't know it took you four posts and a vote on you to get you to finally explain it... But thanks, for finally getting there.

vote: sudgy

Why do you disagree?

my reading of his actions

Oh thanks that explains everything... vote: yuma
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 04:35:46 pm
but seriously...

I think his response fits the bill of more panicky scum. He has been overreactive I think to many of the parts of cases that have come up against him. He hasn't participated in scum hunting, and what he has has been very forced and only when asked. Add that to just my general read of him aside from his reaction that you just listed and yeah, I have a scum read on him.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 04:37:59 pm
I want a sudgy or TA Lynch, won't do mail-mi, Galz, ash, Yuma (the last two might change) and might do pretty much anyone else.

vote: mail-mi

This is an acti-lurking uh-oh post:

I'm happy to be voting Yumasudgy. What's the case on Theorel, Yuma?

What is the Theo case?

How's a mail-mi lynch sound?  Other than overdone?
Absolutely terrible. Sorry for the absence, I've had a lot of homework recently. I'll do stuff when I can.
You know what I hate? When people have IRL legit reasons to be gone and people get voted/lunched over it. I would policy vote you now if I didn't think you were town.

I voted for the post, not the reasons.  The reasons may be valid.  Just put them in VLA and not as an excuse here the moment you get called out.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 04:39:31 pm
Okay, I'm still trying to figure things out.  I really dislike ashersky's threat of "I'm going to do everything in my power to make town lose".  Followed by "I'm always trying to make my team win, breaking rules to make my team win is just how I play the game" to defend his threat of getting himself mod-killed.

This just seems so much like the scum-ash gambit of mean-girls where he went and /outed from all his games when his claim was disbelieved.

I felt like Voltaire's argument was valid yesterday, when he wanted to vote ash simply for the behavior.  I wanted to see what ash said when he came back.  Annd, it seems scummy to me.  I mean his initial couple posts holding to the whole "I can't break the game, because it'd get me modkilled" thing sounded townie.  But then he switched to, "I'm always working towards my teams win-con, I never actually wanted to get modkilled."  It's broken, the townie stuff doesn't fit.  He was never really frustratedly wanting to kill himself to prove his point, he just pretended to.  I dunno, lies lies everywhere...I don't like lying town, pretending town.  It's anti-town, it distracts everyone from scum-hunting.  How are we supposed to find the difference between scum and town, when town itself is lying?  I'm fully of the opinion that deception does NOT help town.

But, he did self-vote.  He's still not done it before as scum, nor not done it as town.  It's so over-the-top, that maybe he's faking it because he's concerned about that side of his meta being exploited.  I've mentioned it every game so far, so he does know that he can use it to manipulate me at least.  But, until I see otherwise, I'm going to play as though it's entirely indicative of his alignment.

Break the game and modkill were completely separate.  I can't talk about the first.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 04:41:48 pm
I voted for the post, not the reasons.  The reasons may be valid.  Just put them in VLA and not as an excuse here the moment you get called out.

This. It sucks, but scum uses that excuse, so I look out for it too (though I personally do not think mail-mi's comment is scummy here).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:00:11 pm
Want to lynch:
Robz (I know you're defending me, but you're earlier stuff is still somewhat scummy, and you started getting more active when called out on it)
chairs (the way he went about voting me seems suspicious, he has barely anything that he's said against me and it seems like he's trying to push an easy mislynch)
Could lynch:
mail-mi and eevee for lurking (can't think of any other big lurkers without looking)
Maybe lynch:
Everybody not in the other categories
Won't lynch:
sudgy
Galzria
ashersky (unless I know he's 100% scum, leaving a claimed 1-shot PR alive is a stupid idea)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:00:26 pm
Anybody else?  We need to move towards a lynch.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:02:35 pm
I agree with Yuma more than Robz in terms of Sudgy's panicking.  Both scum and town panic, for sure, but I think Sudgy's does fall on the side of scum in my mind.  I think when town panics, they tend to look elsewhere and desperately try and find "a better case"... I know I did this as town in both B2B and Dr. Who when I was on the chopping blocks.  Trying to find something that will convince everyone that others are more guilty... it's more likely to happen for a town member because the stuff IS there, you just have to find it.  I think Sudgy also did more of this when he was on the chopping block day1 in LOTR2.. he pushed a case on TA quite heavily, even when he was one of the primary lynches.

The only case I can remember of a player completely tunneling in on their own defense, ignoring all other cases entirely, is Chairs in Harry Potter.  And he was scum there.

Sudgy certainly is different from LOTR2 from what I recall of that game.

Vote: Sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:02:42 pm
Anybody else?  We need to move towards a lynch.

Will lynch:
ash
sudgy
chairs

Would lynch:
anyone not listed below

Won't lynch:
yuma, TA, Galz (theorel?)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 05:03:49 pm
Want to lynch:
Robz (I know you're defending me, but you're earlier stuff is still somewhat scummy, and you started getting more active when called out on it)
chairs (the way he went about voting me seems suspicious, he has barely anything that he's said against me and it seems like he's trying to push an easy mislynch)
Could lynch:
mail-mi and eevee for lurking (can't think of any other big lurkers without looking)
Maybe lynch:
Everybody not in the other categories
Won't lynch:
sudgy
Galzria
ashersky (unless I know he's 100% scum, leaving a claimed 1-shot PR alive is a stupid idea)

What does line about me mean?  Planning to kill me tonight?

vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:05:46 pm
vote: sudgy

Pretty sure that's the hammer, unless you or nkirbit were already voting him.

if not it's L-1 because Robz unvoted.

EVERYONE ELSE CHECK THE VOTE COUNTS

huge scumread on ash if he just "derp"hammered or L-1'd. He knows better.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:06:42 pm
unvote if possible until I know what is going on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:07:06 pm
And nkirbit I guess. Going to check votes now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:07:59 pm
That's L-1, I'm pretty sure.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:08:56 pm
Current votes on sudgy:

sudgy (6): Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs, Voltaire, nkirbit, ash

PPE: Yup. L-1
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:09:22 pm
I agree with Yuma more than Robz in terms of Sudgy's panicking.  Both scum and town panic, for sure, but I think Sudgy's does fall on the side of scum in my mind.  I think when town panics, they tend to look elsewhere and desperately try and find "a better case"... I know I did this as town in both B2B and Dr. Who when I was on the chopping blocks.  Trying to find something that will convince everyone that others are more guilty... it's more likely to happen for a town member because the stuff IS there, you just have to find it.  I think Sudgy also did more of this when he was on the chopping block day1 in LOTR2.. he pushed a case on TA quite heavily, even when he was one of the primary lynches.

The only case I can remember of a player completely tunneling in on their own defense, ignoring all other cases entirely, is Chairs in Harry Potter.  And he was scum there.

Sudgy certainly is different from LOTR2 from what I recall of that game.

Vote: Sudgy

Yay, a vote on me that actually makes sense!

Do you remember me in MXXV?  You hammered me.  I didn't try to get anybody else lynched, and only changed my vote in my second to last post before getting hammered, my reads post.

PPE: Ash, think of it this way:

1. If ash is town:
     1a. If we lynch him today, horrible.
     1b. If we lynch him after using his 1-shot, bad, but not as bad.
2. If ash is town:
     2a. If we lynch him today, yay.
     2b. If we lynch him after "using" his 1-shot, yay.

It makes more sense to lynch you later rather than sooner.

PPE again: I almost got hammered?  Be careful!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:09:39 pm
Except not mine anymore.

Ash, why the unannounced L-1 vote? When you thought I did that in clue (as town), you were all over my (town) butt for such a thing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:10:15 pm
That does increase ash's scuminess in my eyes.  I'm still not lynching him today though.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 05:11:36 pm
Vote Count 1.yuma.3

chairs (1): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (5): Twistedarcher, yuma, chairs, nkirbit, ash
ashersky (2): Galzria, XerxesPraelor
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
mail-mi (1): ashersky
yuma (1): Robz

Not Voting (1): voltaire
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 17, 2013, 05:12:04 pm
And now they're gibbering about "derps" and "hammers."  I thought we were "voting" to a "lynch?"  Pfah.  Such brusque lingo will never catch on.

At least the test of the lynching machine was a terrific success.  If by "success" you mean "immediate evisceration followed by a sublimely brutal flossing."  Which I do.

-- excerpted from the journals of Cao Cao

Vote Count 1.9:

chairs (2): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (5): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, nkirbit, ashersky
ashersky (2): Galzria, XerxesPraelor
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
yuma (1): Robz888

Not Voting (1): Voltaire

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:12:26 pm
vote: ash until I get a damn good explanation.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:12:58 pm
That's mean girls, right?  I haven't looked at that game in a while Sudgy.. I'll take a few minutes to do so now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:15:21 pm
That's mean girls, right?  I haven't looked at that game in a while Sudgy.. I'll take a few minutes to do so now.

Yeah.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 05:15:28 pm
vote: sudgy

Pretty sure that's the hammer, unless you or nkirbit were already voting him.

if not it's L-1 because Robz unvoted.

EVERYONE ELSE CHECK THE VOTE COUNTS

huge scumread on ash if he just "derp"hammered or L-1'd. He knows better.

Dude, jumpy? :)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:16:25 pm
Except not mint anymore.

Sorry, couldn't resist...   ::)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 05:16:36 pm
vote: ash until I get a damn good explanation.

Explanation of what?  Why I put a perfectly safe vote on someone even when YOU didn't know the count?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 05:17:02 pm
Back to Vote: Voltaire
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 05:23:29 pm
vote: voltaire

Was just going to ask if anyone was interested.  That reaction to almost losing his scum partner sudgy was classic.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:24:40 pm
Sudgy, I just read all your posts in Mean Girls, and I sort of see what you're saying.  After the pressure turned on you, you were pretty much exclusively defending yourself, yeah.

But the timelines in the two games are just so different.  In that game, the wagon on you was less than a day long, from the time Robz claimed IC until the time you got lynched.  We had already passed our soft deadline, and were near the end of the day so we needed to get a lynch down quickly.  You were defending yourself from that point, but that's appropriate because we were so close to the deadline.

But before that, you were looking at others much more than you were here.  And in LOTR, you continued to look at others even after you were under pressure (from memory, I haven't re-read that game since I played it, admittedly.)  I don't know why you were so focused on your defense several days ago.. the chances of us quicklynching you are so low that as town, I would think that you would look around more than you did.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:25:17 pm
vote: ash until I get a damn good explanation.

Explanation of what?  Why I put a perfectly safe vote on someone even when YOU didn't know the count?

Why you cast an unannounced L-1 vote. You have in the past made it abundantly clear you consider such an action ultra-scummy. So why did you do it?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:26:38 pm
vote: voltaire

Was just going to ask if anyone was interested.  That reaction to almost losing his scum partner sudgy was classic.

Do you think that scum!voltaire would be outraged if Sudgy were town?  What about town!Voltaire, not knowing Sudgy's alignment?

I read it as pretty neutral, myself.  I also don't find you at all scummy for that vote.. it's the voters job to make sure they're not hammering.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:27:07 pm
If you think Voltaire is my scum partner, why lynch him when you don't even know I'm scum?  That's just a bad way of going about things (as yuma (I think) said earlier).

Also, could everybody voting for someone explain why they are voting for that person?  I see a bajillion votes but not too much explanation.

PPE: nkirbit, remember, also, that my playstyle changes game to game a bit (I think my post explaining that was even in MXXV).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:27:42 pm
I read it as pretty neutral, myself.  I also don't find you at all scummy for that vote.. it's the voters job to make sure they're not hammering.

I am more interested in the intense ash!contradiction inherent in such a thing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 17, 2013, 05:31:45 pm
unvote
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:33:42 pm
I agree with Yuma more than Robz in terms of Sudgy's panicking.  Both scum and town panic, for sure, but I think Sudgy's does fall on the side of scum in my mind.  I think when town panics, they tend to look elsewhere and desperately try and find "a better case"... I know I did this as town in both B2B and Dr. Who when I was on the chopping blocks.  Trying to find something that will convince everyone that others are more guilty... it's more likely to happen for a town member because the stuff IS there, you just have to find it.  I think Sudgy also did more of this when he was on the chopping block day1 in LOTR2.. he pushed a case on TA quite heavily, even when he was one of the primary lynches.

The only case I can remember of a player completely tunneling in on their own defense, ignoring all other cases entirely, is Chairs in Harry Potter.  And he was scum there.

Sudgy certainly is different from LOTR2 from what I recall of that game.

Vote: Sudgy

Yay, a vote on me that actually makes sense!

Hm.  We often find scum saying things like, "I see the case you're making, but...".  Mail-Mi has done it twice, and I think there have been other examples.  This is close to that.

Votes on town members don't make sense, because THEY'RE WRONG.

This makes me feel more secure in my vote.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 17, 2013, 05:36:39 pm
Ash volt sudgy scum team calling it now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 17, 2013, 05:37:03 pm
The Sudgy lynch is nice at this point for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, there's been a lot of movement around the wagon from many different players. Certainly going forward there will be a good deal to analyze one way or another.

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:38:08 pm
Willing to go back to sudgy except for ash's lack of answering my question about his behavior. Which is the exact opposite of how he claims town behaves.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:38:45 pm
Ash volt sudgy scum team calling it now.

Why?

And what do you think of Sudgy, Galz?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:39:00 pm
Ash volt sudgy scum team calling it now.

Don't you have anything else to say, Mr. Lurk?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:43:59 pm
Ash volt sudgy scum team calling it now.

Like the question I've asked you multiple times now?


Also, another random rant.  I get lynched in almost every game I play.  I've been trying harder not to get lynched because of this by opposing it more, but it always just gets people more suspicious of me.  So, the more I oppose the lynch, the more scummy I get, and the less I oppose the lynch, the more likely it is to go through.  What a great game, where I have no hope of living past D1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:44:52 pm
Ash volt sudgy scum team calling it now.

Like the question I've asked you multiple times now?

Oops, wow, I was thinking of Volt's post and replied to chairs through it.  Read his post then mine:

Ash volt sudgy scum team calling it now.

Don't you have anything else to say, Mr. Lurk?

Like the question I've asked you multiple times now?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:45:41 pm
wait - so are you actually asking me a question, sudgy?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 05:46:22 pm
wait - so are you actually asking me a question, sudgy?

No, I'm asking chairs the question.  But I was thinking of it in terms of your post.  Sorry, that was a weird way to go about it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:52:51 pm
I have no idea what is going on at this point. Galz unvoted but then said a sudgy lynch is good. Multiple people appear to be running/have run gambits. Until more people come forward and state what they think and what they want, this game will continue to make no sense to me.

Does anyone else see what I am saying about ash?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 17, 2013, 05:53:20 pm
Ash volt sudgy scum team calling it now.

Like the question I've asked you multiple times now?


Also, another random rant.  I get lynched in almost every game I play.  I've been trying harder not to get lynched because of this by opposing it more, but it always just gets people more suspicious of me.  So, the more I oppose the lynch, the more scummy I get, and the less I oppose the lynch, the more likely it is to go through.  What a great game, where I have no hope of living past D1.

Regardless of your alignment, don't be discouraged by this. It's something that many of us have gone through. Robz and I both were common D1/N1 targets for quite some time because we were either seen as too "dangerous as scum to risk leaving alive", or scum saw us as "too dangerous as town to leave alive". I think I went 6 straight games at one point not living to see D2. Eevee too, has experienced the "he's so scummy lynch hiiiiim" D1 syndrome. At some point people learn. As long as you're not scum. :P

Like, take the flip side. Shraeye is -always- scum. So no matter how townie he comes across, we should just lynch him, because he'll flip scum.

My point is, you need to get past trying to play such that town wants you alive, or thinks you're a bad lynch. Defending yourself, as ridiculous as it sounds, will always read scummy, because you're more focused on saving your own hide then finding scum. Play towards town's wincon, and not your own (even when they're the same!) And things will get better.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:53:59 pm
I did not know that Ash has a known view of finding people scummy for doing what he himself did.  If you could point out where that view comes from that might help me out.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 05:54:09 pm
The Sudgy lynch is nice at this point for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, there's been a lot of movement around the wagon from many different players. Certainly going forward there will be a good deal to analyze one way or another.

Yes, this is true.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 05:54:30 pm
I did not know that Ash has a known view of finding people scummy for doing what he himself did.  If you could point out where that view comes from that might help me out.

I was always say, it's not scummy when Robz does it!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 17, 2013, 05:55:15 pm
I have no idea what is going on at this point. Galz unvoted but then said a sudgy lynch is good. Multiple people appear to be running/have run gambits. Until more people come forward and state what they think and what they want, this game will continue to make no sense to me.

Does anyone else see what I am saying about ash?

Point me to one game where scum derphammered, and I'll point you to ten where town did.

Regardless of his contradiction over the act itself, the fact is "the act itself", ironically, is far more likely to be done by town than scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:55:58 pm
Sudgy, I think I played 6 or so games before I played a day2.  Innovation was my first Day2, and I had been in Mean Girls, Back to Basics, a Blitz game, Shakespeare, and I think one more before I got to day2.  In fact, I think I've played over 10 games and only lived more than 2 days once.  So it happens.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 05:56:05 pm
I have no idea what is going on at this point. Galz unvoted but then said a sudgy lynch is good. Multiple people appear to be running/have run gambits. Until more people come forward and state what they think and what they want, this game will continue to make no sense to me.

Does anyone else see what I am saying about ash?

Point me to one game where scum derphammered, and I'll point you to ten where town did.

Regardless of his contradiction over the act itself, the fact is "the act itself", ironically, is far more likely to be done by town than scum.

I was just about to make that point. Yes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 05:56:28 pm
The derphammer is a fine and useful tool for town.

Points to anyone who gets this old school reference.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 05:57:09 pm
I did not know that Ash has a known view of finding people scummy for doing what he himself did.  If you could point out where that view comes from that might help me out.

From Clue (we were both town):

Vote: ashersky

Policy vote.

We cannot encourage intentional anti-town play. We cannot allow self-voting. That's not fun, and it does not help town win (by definition). UoS has a very good post summarizing why ash may also, in fact, be scum. Hence, my comfort in casting this vote, though it is mostly based on the fact that town does not benefit long-term by this sort of nonsense.

I've gotten enough reads out of today that I think town doesn't lose too much in this specific game, and I'm comfortable with the long-term gain.

Ash, I asked you to start playing how you'd like us to play. You didn't change your style. I cannot see how you are possibly helping town in this game if you are town.

Also, for those of you keeping track, this was an L-1 vote with NO ANNOUNCEMENT OR INTENT MENTIONED.

Add it to your scummy actions tally, folks.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 05:58:00 pm
I have no idea what is going on at this point. Galz unvoted but then said a sudgy lynch is good. Multiple people appear to be running/have run gambits. Until more people come forward and state what they think and what they want, this game will continue to make no sense to me.

Does anyone else see what I am saying about ash?

Point me to one game where scum derphammered, and I'll point you to ten where town did.

Regardless of his contradiction over the act itself, the fact is "the act itself", ironically, is far more likely to be done by town than scum.

I agree.  Scum are going to be more careful to check to make sure they're not doing something that "obviously scummy".

I will admit that I did not check the vote count before I voted Sudgy, because I knew he wasn't close.  It's possible that Ash didn't check, or did check and saw it wasn't the hammer.  It's just not a big deal to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 17, 2013, 05:58:10 pm
The derphammer is a fine and useful tool for town.

Points to anyone who gets this old school reference.

I actually went back and dug the quote just a few games ago... Good times. :P
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 06:01:41 pm
I've been holding this back as long as possible, for my future scum games, but I'm going to put it out now because I need to stop my lynch.  I don't even know if it will help, but we'll see.

How to catch me as scum:

1. First, it's hard.  I play scum as town, as I've said before.  I can remember which games I've been scum (LotR, Shakespeare), but I won't be able to remember if a specific statement I said sometime was as scum or town.  I get them that mixed up.  The best way to catch me is to target me as a cop.
2. Despite this, there is something in my subconscious while I'm typing up a post that I am scum this game.  The best time to catch me with this is right at the beginning of the day, when my being scum is fresh in my mind.
3. My reactions to my scumbuddies.  This is probably the best one (other than a cop).  Whenever I saw Jimmmmm in LotR, I couldn't not think about how he was my scumbuddy.  I'm not sure how I would react differently to my scumbuddy than to others, but I'm sure there is a difference since I see the people differently.

PPE: I think the reason people are saying ash doing it is scummy is because he's been so against it before.  I still maintain that he's not a good lynch today, while he has moved into my scumreads.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 17, 2013, 06:03:19 pm
The derphammer is a fine and useful tool for town.

Points to anyone who gets this old school reference.

I suddenly feel ancient and have nO idea why.

-- excerpted from the journals of Cao Cao
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 06:03:56 pm
To illustrate point #2, look at the beginning of LotR (RMM7, I think).  My first few posts there about flavor claiming was generally already cooked up in the QT, something I don't usually like doing as scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 17, 2013, 06:04:44 pm
I've been holding this back as long as possible, for my future scum games,

Hey, get a load of Robz Jr. over here...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 17, 2013, 06:06:31 pm
I'd like to hear what Ash has to say in response to Voltaire.  That's certainly a contradiction.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 17, 2013, 06:10:46 pm
There are reports that Dhong Zhuo's army is on the move. Once we decide on who to lynch, I will allow some time for last words and then you will all retire to your tents. Make sure everyone sends me a messenger so the spies won't know who to target.

Vote Count 1.10:

chairs (2): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (4): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, nkirbit
ashersky (2): XerxesPraelor, Voltaire
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
Voltaire (2): Robz888, Ashersky

Not Voting (1): Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

[/quote]
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 06:12:26 pm
There are reports that Dhong Zhuo's army is on the move. Once we decide on who to lynch, I will allow some time for last words and then you will all retire to your tents. Make sure everyone sends me a messenger so the spies won't know who to target.

Vote Count 1.10:

chairs (2): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (4): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, nkirbit
ashersky (2): XerxesPraelor, Voltaire
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Twistedarcher (1): mail-mi
Voltaire (2): Robz888, Ashersky

Not Voting (1): Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.

[/quote]

I have almost made the [/quote] mistake so many times as a mod...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 17, 2013, 06:23:52 pm
I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

Y u no want TA lynch? I want to reread this thread when I have access to a computer. Ash seems a lot more scummy from that L-1 vote on sudgy, BUT, he is a claimed PR that we can rat out later if he is scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 06:28:29 pm
I did not know that Ash has a known view of finding people scummy for doing what he himself did.  If you could point out where that view comes from that might help me out.

From Clue (we were both town):

Vote: ashersky

Policy vote.

We cannot encourage intentional anti-town play. We cannot allow self-voting. That's not fun, and it does not help town win (by definition). UoS has a very good post summarizing why ash may also, in fact, be scum. Hence, my comfort in casting this vote, though it is mostly based on the fact that town does not benefit long-term by this sort of nonsense.

I've gotten enough reads out of today that I think town doesn't lose too much in this specific game, and I'm comfortable with the long-term gain.

Ash, I asked you to start playing how you'd like us to play. You didn't change your style. I cannot see how you are possibly helping town in this game if you are town.

Also, for those of you keeping track, this was an L-1 vote with NO ANNOUNCEMENT OR INTENT MENTIONED.

Add it to your scummy actions tally, folks.

I was tunneling you hardcore and pointed out something that wasn't really scummy to make you seem scummier.  Wasn't I scum then, too?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 06:29:41 pm
Plus, there's no requirement to say "this is the L-1 vote" when voting. 

Plus, I would have been fine if that was the hammer.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 06:30:55 pm
I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

"I have a town read on sudgy, so I would be fine with lynching him."

?!?  (not ??? so that Robz won't get mad at me  ;))

This is making me want to vote mail-mi more.

PPE: Ash, why the change of heart?  You've gotten mad at people before for it, now you're saying it's fine.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 06:34:43 pm
I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

"I have a town read on sudgy, so I would be fine with lynching him."

?!?  (not ??? so that Robz won't get mad at me  ;))

This is making me want to vote mail-mi more.

PPE: Ash, why the change of heart?  You've gotten mad at people before for it, now you're saying it's fine.

When did I actually get mad for it?  Voltaire's quote, which he remembered because it was about him, was me trying to get Voltaire lynched.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 06:36:37 pm
I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

"I have a town read on sudgy, so I would be fine with lynching him."

?!?  (not ??? so that Robz won't get mad at me  ;))

This is making me want to vote mail-mi more.

PPE: Ash, why the change of heart?  You've gotten mad at people before for it, now you're saying it's fine.

When did I actually get mad for it?  Voltaire's quote, which he remembered because it was about him, was me trying to get Voltaire lynched.

That's what I was talking about.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 06:41:11 pm
voltaire: ash doing this doesn't change much for me. I think that scum derphammer (or in this case vote to L-1 w/o intent) just as much, if not less than town does. It can be something to add to a case, but right now I don't see a very good case on ash, so it isn't anything worth voting over.

NK: contradictions between games aren't scummy. See my argument about this with TA in LoR2. People change how they view things

And PS the derphammer is a fine and useful tool... for town and scum. I have had my fair share on both sides of the coin. Derphammering SK-Galz... derphammering mcmc in Mean Girls, derphammering Grujah in Blitz1... that sort of stuff is pretty meaningless w/o content.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 17, 2013, 06:42:34 pm
I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

"I have a town read on sudgy, so I would be fine with lynching him."

?!?  (not ??? so that Robz won't get mad at me  ;))

This is making me want to vote mail-mi more.

PPE: Ash, why the change of heart?  You've gotten mad at people before for it, now you're saying it's fine.
That's not what I said. Your ATE is scummy, but I'm getting more townie vibes from you. So I'm okay with it, but don't particularly want it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 06:44:43 pm
I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

"I have a town read on sudgy, so I would be fine with lynching him."

?!?  (not ??? so that Robz won't get mad at me  ;))

This is making me want to vote mail-mi more.

PPE: Ash, why the change of heart?  You've gotten mad at people before for it, now you're saying it's fine.
That's not what I said. Your ATE is scummy, but I'm getting more townie vibes from you. So I'm okay with it, but don't particularly want it.

Saying that you are "totally okay with it" doesn't sound like you don't particularly want it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 06:53:09 pm
I was tunneling you hardcore and pointed out something that wasn't really scummy to make you seem scummier.  Wasn't I scum then, too?

If you thought you were scum in that game it would explain so much! Like I said in the post you just quoted, you were town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 06:58:39 pm
I was tunneling you hardcore and pointed out something that wasn't really scummy to make you seem scummier.  Wasn't I scum then, too?

If you thought you were scum in that game it would explain so much! Like I said in the post you just quoted, you were town.

You do have to admit that wasn't ash's finest moment as town though... I mean he wasn't exactly on the correct page there was he? Not even close come to think of it. So using something that he said incorrectly as town to show that he is scum in this game doesn't really work.

Like I said, cross game contradictions don't tend to hold water. People do change their ideas about how the game plays out. Sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 17, 2013, 07:07:44 pm
So what conclusion should I draw? That ash doesn't play to his wincon as town? I get that people change their opinions, but ash defending his actions by reading what he did and thinking it was him as scum is just...just...it leaves me speechless. How does anyone else not see this.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 07:12:22 pm
So what conclusion should I draw? That ash doesn't play to his wincon as town? I get that people change their opinions, but ash defending his actions by reading what he did and thinking it was him as scum is just...just...it leaves me speechless. How does anyone else not see this.

I am saying you have a point... but I think in the grand scheme of things it is a very, very minor one. One that I would tack onto the end of a case. But as I see the "larger" case on ash invalid (at least at this stage of the game), this tiny little point isn't doing it for me as it has a very ambiguous meaning when it comes to actually trying to figure out alignment.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 17, 2013, 08:47:17 pm
So what conclusion should I draw? That ash doesn't play to his wincon as town? I get that people change their opinions, but ash defending his actions by reading what he did and thinking it was him as scum is just...just...it leaves me speechless. How does anyone else not see this.

It means pushing the "L1 vote without a claim is scummy" move is a scummy move.  Which is what you are doing now.  Which is why you are scummy and I'm voting you.

See?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 09:11:48 pm
Well I take it we are doing a Friday softdeadline as Thursday's has past....


Mods: Can we get a prod on eevee? He hasn't posted in 48+ hours. And a prod on Xerxes. He hasn't posted in 24+

Their total combined posts is 22... (counting pre-game).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 09:37:43 pm
I just reread chairs, and he hasn't had too much other than some theory discussion and voting me.  And he still hasn't said why, after I explained myself.  He's been pretty lurky, and is avoiding certain things.  I would say this is enough to lynch D1, especially this one.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 17, 2013, 09:56:18 pm
Okay, I'm sorry I posted in the rules thread.  I haven't caught up here, but I want to address my rules post somewhere, and I guess this is the only place to do it.  I will clarify as many times as necessary that I don't want ashersky banned from fds games.  But I have more to say.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 09:57:41 pm
Okay, I'm sorry I posted in the rules thread.  I haven't caught up here, but I want to address my rules post somewhere, and I guess this is the only place to do it.  I will clarify as many times as necessary that I don't want ashersky banned from fds games.  But I have more to say.

If it specifically pertains to this game and finding someone to lynch post it. if it doesn't please save it until after the game would be my suggestion... we don't need to be derailed again...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 17, 2013, 10:20:51 pm
Well I take it we are doing a Friday softdeadline as Thursday's has past....


Mods: Can we get a prod on eevee? He hasn't posted in 48+ hours. And a prod on Xerxes. He hasn't posted in 24+

Their total combined posts is 22... (counting pre-game).

Eevee... you are here... you are looking at the "edge cases" thread... If you leave and don't post in this thread I will vote for you....
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 17, 2013, 10:25:37 pm
Sorry, I think this needs to be said regardless...it's not long, and I don't want anyone to respond to it. 
Even if the rules were changed according to my proposal AND ashersky had actually broken rules in this game I would still fight against him being banned.  The WHOLE point was how to handle issues in the FUTURE not currently.  I'm sorry it came across as a personal attack.

@ashersky: your post pointed out that there is a possible discrepancy in how these games are approached (I don't even know if there is one, but there might be one).  A discrepancy as large as "what constitutes cheating" is kind of a big deal.  I think it should be clear what's "cheating" and what isn't.  I don't think anyone has cheated, nor has anyone threatened to do so.  I don't know if it's even possible to cheat in the current system because Rules Violations are penalized in game.  Anyways, I hope you'll understand that I do NOT thing you're a cheater on any level...you like to push boundaries, you think outside the box.  Those are good things, they help you win games.  That's fine by me.

When I argued with you in the masons and monks pre-game thread, I decided never to play another game with you.  I changed my mind by the end of MXIX.  I honestly and totally don't feel that way any more at all.  There are aspects of your play that frustrate me, true.  But I actually overall enjoy playing with you.  Really truly sorry you thought I wanted you banned.  I hope you accept my apology.  If you don't want to play with me anymore, I totally understand, and I'll respect your wishes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 17, 2013, 10:27:50 pm
Please let's not discuss what actually is cheating and how I'm wrong about there not being any cheating.  The whole point is that there's ambiguity, I think should be cleared up so that there is no more ambiguity.  That can be handled outside the game, that's why I posted it in the rules thread...unfortunately, it touches too close to this game to actually be discussed apparently.

Sorry to everyone for bringing it up there.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 17, 2013, 11:55:39 pm
Sorry guys, not sure if I've ever had more pages to catch up.

I understand why people are frustrated by Ash's play, and I appreciate the fact he could be scum.. but occam's razor and stuff, no way he is the most likely to be scum given his claim. Also, in the scenario where he is town, we want him to use his ability. So, after Galzria ash is the lynch I like the least.

Other than ash, I for once find multiple people scummy. sudgy' "grand reveal" of how to catch him was really a whole bunch of nothing, generally I find profound statements like that very towny.. that just didn't feel very profound. Again, like he is saying things just to get the town cred.

Robz seems to have a bias, thinking Voltaire is scummy in every game. I disagree with his "I just voted for sudgy to bait because he is so town", you just can't know that sudgy is town, so drawing any conclusions from that is silly. Also, sudgy just is scummy, I don't think joining a reasonable wagon in a situation where we need a lynch is punishable.

I find Xerxes scummy for his contributions. It's not like I see him as much more likely to be mafia than anyone else, so I guess giving him a pass for day 1 is fine. Yuma suggesting that somehow felt off to me, probably because he said he has a town read on xerxes in the same post, and that's a position I don't agree with. yuma has been less of a presence, but with the baby that's hardly a surprise.

chairs's style is somehow very unmemorable for me, I never seem to have any reads on him (sorry dude!). mail-mi I'm also very very null on, which is scummy in itself. theorel has been less of a presence after dominating the discussion a bit at first, which I also find suspect.

I'm not hammering sudgy right now, but if it was deadline time,I sure would.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 17, 2013, 11:59:46 pm
Eevee, I one time remember you saying that when I stick out I'm town and when I blend in I'm scum.  Do you still believe that?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 18, 2013, 12:08:46 am
Eevee, I one time remember you saying that when I stick out I'm town and when I blend in I'm scum.  Do you still believe that?
I generally believe that of everyone. However, as the main lynch candidate, it's not in your control if you stick out or not here. I was there to build the initial wagon on you and the reasons for it actually were quite well in like with "trying to blend in".
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:15:19 am

We're okay.  Explanation understood.  Let's play this game!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:33:40 am
I was tunneling you hardcore and pointed out something that wasn't really scummy to make you seem scummier.  Wasn't I scum then, too?

If you thought you were scum in that game it would explain so much! Like I said in the post you just quoted, you were town.

Pushing a vote to L-1 with no announcement as scummy is, in itself, a scummy thing.  I agree with Yuma that CLUE is a terrible example of town!ash.  If you want to find a good version, HP is probably better.

My pressing of you, and our argument in general, was pretty terrible town play overall.  Pointing out what I did there "as town" as a counterpoint to how my post in this game "is scummy" isn't a great example, in my opinion.  Because when I was pushing you in CLUE, I was way wrong.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:34:57 am
Well I take it we are doing a Friday softdeadline as Thursday's has past....


Mods: Can we get a prod on eevee? He hasn't posted in 48+ hours. And a prod on Xerxes. He hasn't posted in 24+

Their total combined posts is 22... (counting pre-game).

Deadline with no lynch is bad.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:36:08 am
I just reread chairs, and he hasn't had too much other than some theory discussion and voting me.  And he still hasn't said why, after I explained myself.  He's been pretty lurky, and is avoiding certain things.  I would say this is enough to lynch D1, especially this one.

Nothing sticks out, I guess.  But is he viable at this late stage?  Is anyone but sudgy?

This isn't the worst D1 case, though. 
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:39:18 am
Sorry guys, not sure if I've ever had more pages to catch up.

I understand why people are frustrated by Ash's play, and I appreciate the fact he could be scum.. but occam's razor and stuff, no way he is the most likely to be scum given his claim. Also, in the scenario where he is town, we want him to use his ability. So, after Galzria ash is the lynch I like the least.

Other than ash, I for once find multiple people scummy. sudgy' "grand reveal" of how to catch him was really a whole bunch of nothing, generally I find profound statements like that very towny.. that just didn't feel very profound. Again, like he is saying things just to get the town cred.

Robz seems to have a bias, thinking Voltaire is scummy in every game. I disagree with his "I just voted for sudgy to bait because he is so town", you just can't know that sudgy is town, so drawing any conclusions from that is silly. Also, sudgy just is scummy, I don't think joining a reasonable wagon in a situation where we need a lynch is punishable.

I find Xerxes scummy for his contributions. It's not like I see him as much more likely to be mafia than anyone else, so I guess giving him a pass for day 1 is fine. Yuma suggesting that somehow felt off to me, probably because he said he has a town read on xerxes in the same post, and that's a position I don't agree with. yuma has been less of a presence, but with the baby that's hardly a surprise.

chairs's style is somehow very unmemorable for me, I never seem to have any reads on him (sorry dude!). mail-mi I'm also very very null on, which is scummy in itself. theorel has been less of a presence after dominating the discussion a bit at first, which I also find suspect.

I'm not hammering sudgy right now, but if it was deadline time,I sure would.

The Eevee that talks about scum reads instead of town reads is usually scum!eevee.  I feel like that happens because when he's scum, he generally looks to seed doubt, whereas town he likes to remove town from the equation.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 18, 2013, 02:41:19 am
Sorry guys, not sure if I've ever had more pages to catch up.

I understand why people are frustrated by Ash's play, and I appreciate the fact he could be scum.. but occam's razor and stuff, no way he is the most likely to be scum given his claim. Also, in the scenario where he is town, we want him to use his ability. So, after Galzria ash is the lynch I like the least.

Other than ash, I for once find multiple people scummy. sudgy' "grand reveal" of how to catch him was really a whole bunch of nothing, generally I find profound statements like that very towny.. that just didn't feel very profound. Again, like he is saying things just to get the town cred.

Robz seems to have a bias, thinking Voltaire is scummy in every game. I disagree with his "I just voted for sudgy to bait because he is so town", you just can't know that sudgy is town, so drawing any conclusions from that is silly. Also, sudgy just is scummy, I don't think joining a reasonable wagon in a situation where we need a lynch is punishable.

I find Xerxes scummy for his contributions. It's not like I see him as much more likely to be mafia than anyone else, so I guess giving him a pass for day 1 is fine. Yuma suggesting that somehow felt off to me, probably because he said he has a town read on xerxes in the same post, and that's a position I don't agree with. yuma has been less of a presence, but with the baby that's hardly a surprise.

chairs's style is somehow very unmemorable for me, I never seem to have any reads on him (sorry dude!). mail-mi I'm also very very null on, which is scummy in itself. theorel has been less of a presence after dominating the discussion a bit at first, which I also find suspect.

I'm not hammering sudgy right now, but if it was deadline time,I sure would.

The Eevee that talks about scum reads instead of town reads is usually scum!eevee.  I feel like that happens because when he's scum, he generally looks to seed doubt, whereas town he likes to remove town from the equation.

Just a thought.

That could very well be a good point. Can you support it beyond "I feel like..."?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 02:43:23 am
I have no idea how scum Eevee plays. I can't think of him ever being scum in a completed game since Mafia 3, other than one Blitz game I was in (and I'm sure some RMMs and BMs and the like, but I can't keep them straight).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:45:28 am
I have no idea how scum Eevee plays. I can't think of him ever being scum in a completed game since Mafia 3, other than one Blitz game I was in (and I'm sure some RMMs and BMs and the like, but I can't keep them straight).

Mean girls.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:48:55 am
Okay, so the thing about Robz is, for him the inconsistencies and unrefined play is just disinterested townie. I see the case against him, I really do, but he has been mislynched like this so often. Have we ever nailed scum Robz day 1? Of course he could be scum and banking on someone to say this but man, intentionally appearing scummy as scum to look towny is just so far-fetched he deserves it if that's the case.

So, much like in bankers beware the scummy Jimmm we were seeing was not the scum Jimmm I know, this isnt the scum Robz I know. I dont know if its everyone rallying against him all of a sudden or what, but this now reminds me of Robz in mafia noir. Annoingly scummy, but town.

I like the mail-mi lynch better. We caught him for "obvious scum play" once already, so while the case on Robz is similar, I think the same behavior is a MUCH bigger scumtell for mail-mi.

Compare this to eevee's latest here.  Change robs to ash.  Change mail-mi to sudgy (or xerxes).

This was late D1, first post after a "sorry catching up on mobile" type post.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:50:16 am
Not a perfect match, but same idea.  Open with "scummy seeming guy isn't likely scum" then direct attention to other scummy read.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 02:54:13 am
I have no idea how scum Eevee plays. I can't think of him ever being scum in a completed game since Mafia 3, other than one Blitz game I was in (and I'm sure some RMMs and BMs and the like, but I can't keep them straight).

Mean girls.

Oh, yeah. I died Night 1 in that game, I didnt follow it closely after that.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 02:54:47 am
Example reads post from scum!eevee:

Okay, I'm here now. ashersky, you've called me out on being too lurky in like my past 5 games (all town), but I do realize I haven't been a big presence here (well, I just had 3 pages to read, so that much is obvious). I know I haven't posted anything in the VLA thread, I did briefly mention this in the other mafia game though I guess. It's really that it's summer! I'm spending way less time inside / on my computer, so way less time for mafia. I should really prioritize reading and posting higher, that's really not an excuse. Been feeling a bit of a burnout.

But okay!

I'll do a read list to get back to the swing of things:

yuma: nullread, it's unfair to expect him to lead every post count, he is certainly pulling his weight and taking stances. If anything, I'd expect scum yuma to try even harder to appear leader-y town. Ever so slight town read.

ashersky: hasn't done anything crazy and generally seems to be very pro-town and helpful, as is known I attribute this behaviour more to scum ashersky. Like, in the last game as town, he decided to be a tellbot in the beginning, here he isn't making such waves. I'm not bringing this up as a case, as I don't want to encourage ash to jump off the rails (I think he is playing very well now!), but it does make him bit of a scumread to me.

mail-mi: I rather like AHoppy's case! I hadn't realized mail-mi sort of artificially ups his (perceived) contributions and post count, that's day 1 scumminess I think actual mafia would want to do (and it wasn't so obvious that mail-mi would be sure everyone would notice). I'm really interested in seeing how mail-mi proceeds to play (won't comment further on this, as it would be very dumb to tell him how he should act so I'd think he's towny).

liopoil: Hmmh, it's funny, I know he has posted, but absolutely nothing comes into mind. That combined with the fact that he would have been a prime candidate for a scum partner for myself makes me suspicious. I think liopoil fits the bill of a mafia player that is helping town enough to not attract suspicion but still not making any waves and generally just so middling and safe. I think this fits the bill of a "laying low" mafia guy if any! Obviously it also makes sense for a townie that just hasn't been in the middle of anything yet, so the "case" is really nothing but fitting a narrative I earlier described. (I do think that narrative would be a good way to pick day 1 lynches/pressure targets though).

Robz888: Who knows with this guy. To me his lurking is a null tell, he has been frustratingly lurky as town and boldly lurky as scum before. He tells with pride how he balances that out, while I disagree with that, it clearly means his scumminess doesn't equate to a lot of mafianess (sadly). I don't think he is our man for day 1, but he certainly isn't a town read. Maybe a ever so slight scum, just for not doing anything too towny yet. (Also a lot of people would be tempted to pick this guy as their partner.)

nkirbit: I think is playing well, I don't remember much but I sort of expect new scum to be clumsy (perhaps this is a wrong assumption though, they seem to play town just as well if not better as us "veterans"). nkirbit, what's your previous mafia experience like?

AHoppy: Very few posts, but just got the mail-mi case in so is in my good graces now. Just having two posts and then coming out with a well laid out and to me a very reasonable case on someone is exactly the kind of play that I don't attribute to mafia: first he made waves with egregious underposting and then with an original case on someone. Yes, I'm hoping he'll be more of his presence on page 16 and less of his presence in the previous 15 pages, but he is a town read for sure. AHoppy, what's your previous mafia experience like?

MGP: Got a lot of heat I sort of found undeserved, and I think handled the pressure ok. Town-ish read / I don't think a good day 1 lynch with the information we have. (I know I defended her stronger earlier, but that was more like "uhm no, I don't think that's very scummy" rather than "that's super towny!). Maybe I'd even put her down as a null read, as I've never seen her react to pressure before so it's hard to draw any conclusions from that (and I think reacting to unwarranted pressure is easier to scum as they don't have to fake outrage).

mcmcsalot: Is busy? Hmm, my meta feeling on mcmc is the same than on yuma, I wouldn't expect him to go for the "middling nonwavemaking mafia" style, but rather to boldly take a bigger role. Well, I doubt he would be able to do that if he is busy, regardless of his alignment, but still being "on the middle" as far as I can tell (I don't remember anything he has done) is less scummy to mcmc than it would be to some. Still, not doing anything towny is always a scumtell to me, so a very tiny scumread on mcmc.

spiritbears: This is actually interesting, I obviously had a towny feeling on him before I started writing this post, but now that I've thought about this game more, I realize his level of activity is sort of unlike the spiritbears that has been town that I've seen before. It's certainly great, and could be just natural progression as he starts to know the other players better et cetera, but spiritbears is clearly savvy enough ro realize we don't tend to lynch the heavy contributors and be posting more because of that. Still, I think his answer to the "who would you have picked" question is a towny one (making waves!), and I doubt scum would intentionally be bold there, so for that, for handling pressure well and for generally being present and active spirit is a townread for me. Also I want to note that I was the one to deflect the lynch from spirit/wero to Robz in the samurai-game. We had likely already won at that point, but I do credit myself with being able to read spirit at least a bit because of that. So, even if he was a nullread or a slight scumread I'd rather keep him alive and hope to make a better read on later days.

sudgy: I've got nothing. I didn't have anything on scum sudgy in the LOTR game until WS got the cop investigation, so this fits his scum narrative in my opinion. Slightly scummy for not making waves which is what I think he'd do as scum.

TwistedArcher: Apparently isn't playing, huh!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 03:03:33 am
A quintessential town post from Eevee:

Quick comments on these recent, fascinating developments:

-I love it ash, that was awesome! Whatever to help us past RVS. I get a town read from that, thinking of a different way to get the game going and scumhunt seems towny.

-I indeed find both chairs and Voltaire towny for our discussions in the qt.

-Everyone should use their qt to it's full potential and scumhunt the bejesus out of their mates there. It really is much easier to do so in a crowd of three as opposed to a full game.

-Should we post all discussions we had in the QT here? EFHW, are we allowed to?

-Galz, having a scum read on one or your house mates doesn't make the other townier because "having two scum in a house is unlikely". After you assume there is one scum, the second person is just as likely to be scum than anyone else.

All towny references.  This is D1 HP.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 18, 2013, 03:03:36 am
I see a lot of null reads in there, but not too many big scum reads.

You're right though that he does have a tendency to fight harder for his town reads when he's town, rather than hunting down scum. So his list of scum reads is... odd.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 03:06:47 am
If you scan his town games, you'll see lots of one-line posts and engagement with people and less of the big reads type stuff, I think.  Scan D1 of HP.  He's chipper and excited, emotive.  Those are Eevee town tells to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 18, 2013, 03:08:03 am
I see a lot of null reads in there, but not too many big scum reads.

You're right though that he does have a tendency to fight harder for his town reads when he's town, rather than hunting down scum. So his list of scum reads is... odd.

I think scum!eevee scum hunts, while town!eevee town hunts, if that makes sense.  Town eevee is looking for teammates to NOT lynch, while scum eevee is looking for an acceptable mislynch with backing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 03:10:55 am
If you scan his town games, you'll see lots of one-line posts and engagement with people and less of the big reads type stuff, I think.  Scan D1 of HP.  He's chipper and excited, emotive.  Those are Eevee town tells to me.

To the extent that I know scum!Eevee at all, I do agree with you here, ash.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 18, 2013, 04:01:32 am
Sorry I haven't been posting very much. I'm quite a few time zones off from all of you (I'm in europe) so whenever I'm on, nothing much changes, but I woke up this morning and found like 6 pages I hadn't read.

Anyway, I haven't been in a game with the rest of the people here, so I just have other peoples' arguments to go off of, not my own intuitions about who looks scummy. Reading peoples' arguments, ash for his behavior and sudgy for the fact that most of what he says is one-liners, not full-on arguments, seem worst to me. But as other people have pointed out, we don't want to lynch ash day 1 or we might lose his role. Eevee has been accusing me, but he still seems pretty town-like. I don't have an opinion on Robz, yuma seems very towny, so probably mail-mi seems the most suspicious here. I also haven't read as much that TA posted, so he's the only other one I'd be willing to lynch. In any case, we don't want to end the day without a lynch, so I'll vote for whichever one of (mail-mi, sudgy, ta) has most votes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 04:07:45 am
Xerxes, I am basically just giving you my Day 1 newbie pass. Expect serious heat tomorrow!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 18, 2013, 07:10:00 am
I see ashersky's argument.  I will counter with, that's what happened in DS9, and resulted in 2 things:
1. not a whole lot day1 (bit of argument).
2. lynch of lurking town-Eevee day2.

So, I do think (really, same as I thought there) that this is scummy for Eevee.  It makes him look scummier.  BUT it's not a slam-dunk case.  I don't think it's worth trying to start a wagon from scratch at this stage...although we're pretty weak on lynch-candidates.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 18, 2013, 08:39:15 am
I reviewed chairs here and in MXXVII(HP)/MXXVIII(Clue)
In HP where he was scum and lynched day1.  He seemed really serious the whole time.  It seems like the argument for his lynch was that he too-quickly reduced the lynch-pool?  Combined with some contradictory posts regarding his interactions with mail-mi?

In Clue (as town) he seemed a bit less serious.  He also did a massive shraeye-style analysis.

Here, he seems more jokey than in Clue...although it's still restricted to a couple posts.  He's not doing as significant of analysis, but he's more constrained for time these days.  The result of all of this is that I feel like his meta is still developing, he's pretty inconsistent in style from game-to-game.  But if anything he seems closer to his town-game than scum-game here.  Basically, he's a bit more light-hearted in his town-play compared to scum-play.  It's possible he's faking it, but for now I'm leaning back to town on him.  unvote

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 18, 2013, 09:35:30 am
Okay, so I think I need to figure out my actual reads again.  I'm having trouble keeping track.  Okay, let's try something a little different this time.  I'm going to list all players, and try to sort them from scummiest read to towniest.

nkirbit - I dunno, his posts seem not genuine somehow?  I mean before with the quasi-defense of sudgy, and now with the vote essentially for defending himself.  I disagree substantively with the idea that town is more likely to present "better" alternatives, I think that's more likely to be scum (see mail-mi in XXX where he suggests Robz as a "better" alternative as an example).  Town is more likely to get stuck on their own "towniness", while scum really just wants someone else lynched.

Eevee - There's just not a lot to go on this game.  This day has gone so strangely, that I have no good "action-analysis".  i.e. there's no apparent way that scum are trying to control the game, unless they're really seeking to get sudgy lynched...but that doesn't fit with a scum-narrative.  So, we end up with the relatively minor Eevee-finds-people-scummy case, as really one of the more compelling cases.  Funny, given that I just gave an example of where it wasn't true.

mail-mi - I looked into the lurking thing.  It seems like it's not a scum-tell, given that he has had middling-low post counts as both town and scum before.  He tends to be a low-end poster, but not absent.  I'm willing to admit that I just got lucky in MXXX.

sudgy - I dunno, I'm more convinced he'll be flipping town.  But we're in this weird case of alternatives all being quickly rejected as the sudgy wagon builds up again.  I just don't see sudgy as scummy enough to be the default-lynch.  I mean, I don't think he's super-townie...I dunno.  I'll vote here to ensure a lynch if it's needed, but I just don't get the fervor about it.

And, I'm not explaining the rest of these, I think they're all explained elsewhere if you're curious.
twistedarcher
yuma
xerxes
chairs
Robz
ashersky
Voltaire
Galzria

Well, I just offered a counter-example for Eevee being scum.  Although it seems like there's more support there, I'm going to vote: nkirbit first, to see if there's any unspoken support there.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 18, 2013, 09:42:41 am
vote: eeveeis better than sudgy, IMO.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 18, 2013, 09:52:39 am
Well, yeps. That's true and a valid point, I even pointed it out myself. You get a different perspective on the game when you read 35% of the game in one sitting and dont get to contribute anything as everything unfolds. This day 1 has also been unique in that we've only had one serious candidate and i was one of the guys to start that wagon - i think the case on sudgy is viable and there havent been any other potential lynches to draw reads from (except for ash and guess what, thats the one town read i do have).

In the end I think that explains why my reads are like this. Only one real wagon is pretty bad for us information-wise - especially as i find it has been supported pretty much proportionally to the strength of the case.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 18, 2013, 09:58:11 am
To expand on the earlier point: PoE is significantly harder when less people have been under real pressure and more people have had similar opinions. So little to go on!

The fact that ash, someone i believe to be town pointed this out and it gained momentum that fast is interesting, but unless sudgy is scum, scum is sitting comfortable right now. If sudgy is town, they really dont have to "risk their reputation" by trying to shift it to me.

Sudgy by the way could realistically have claimed or hinted at his role at some point this far but hasnt. i think thats good play, but makes some roles less likely.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 18, 2013, 09:58:49 am
I'm not sure I followed your argument on nkirbit, can you clarify?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 10:53:21 am
post count!

1. Eevee - 13
2. Robz888 - 120
3. Ashersky - 232
4. Voltaire - 88
5. Yuma - 101
6. Twistedarcher - 55
7. Theorel - 35
8. Sudgy - 148
9. Mail-Mi - 50
10. Chairs - 22
11. Nkirbit - 39
12. Xerxes - 11
13. Galzria - 52

things that stand out to me...

sudgy is really high, I imagine because he has felt compelled to defend himself so much, theorel dropped down a lot. He was toward the top initially when we were just talking theory, but has dropped off a lot as we have moved toward the scum hunting... really I think theorel is off. His scum hunting has been... rather mediocre... and I don't like his stances on sudgy... this whole middleground thing going on that he has done since the beginning. I am becoming more and more suspicious of it regardless of sudgy's alignment, actually.

I still have a townread on nkirbit. He is on the lower end, but I think that is kinda par for the course for nkirbit with his busier schedule. Eevee thanks for coming back. I don't really see the points that ash is trying to make. I guess mostly because the sample size is so small. Eevee is almost always town, his scum games are soooo rare, and so spread apart that it is hard to pick out trends with him at all.

chairs... again, he is about where I expect him to be.

Voltaire on the other hand, I actually expect to be a bit higher. I have kinda stayed away from the voltaire lynch because I felt some of the reasons people have suspected him have been ridiculous, specifically the "How did you know that Robz was town" stuff. But he could be worth taking a look at again.

So as I said before I think my lynch pool at this point is sudgy, theorel and maybe voltaire and maybeeee chairs. I think I would add in Robz in there as well, but I think I would prefer any of the above three first.

But I far and away prefer sudgy and think that those saying we won't get any information out of it are being silly... There is lots of information to get out of it! And, beside, we don't lynch for information, we lynch to hit mafia. The information is going to come regardless of who we lynch, unless it is for some dumb scumslip that leaves apparently everyone suddenly w/o autonomy, but the sudgy lynch isn't anything like that, so I don't see the worry.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 18, 2013, 10:54:04 am
I will be away starting in about 7 hours, so wherever my vote is at that point is where it will have to stay. Fine with it on sudgy right now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 18, 2013, 10:56:32 am
is sudgy L-1?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 18, 2013, 10:59:28 am
is sudgy L-1?

No, he fell down to L-3 somehow I think. Super-surprised by that.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 18, 2013, 11:04:20 am
Um...probably because it's several thoughts together.
I find nkirbit a little scummy.  His overall play seems "off".  Going from "whole case on sudgy is neutral" to contradiction->vote, to contradiction explained->unvote, it's all neutral again, popping onto xerxes for voting ash, then popping onto sudgy for "panicking", finally sudgy-vote confirmed because he said nkirbit's vote "made sense".

I also disagree with him on a couple of his points regarding sudgy:

I disagree on the panicking thing.  I think town often gets bogged down in defending themselves, while scum is often on the lookout for an alternate lynch.  Any lynch which isn't a scum-mate is good for scum, while town doesn't particularly want to deflect onto another townie.  If there were another wagon out there, I would expect sudgy to be on it, because they have a higher chance of being scum.  But no one's really found a compelling case outside of sudgy (by which I mean one that's caught on) to call sudgy scum for his inability to do so seems wrong.  It's not like he hasn't been voting or giving reads, he's just not finding a compelling case.

The "confirmation" thing I think is misplaced also.  I mean, any reaction to a vote can fit a scum-tell.  "You're voting me for terrible reasons" fits the scum-tell of scum that's caught for what they view as bad reasons.  "You're voting me for good reasons" fits the scum-tell of scum that can't really defend itself, so acknowledges the case in hopes of it disappearing. 

I don't think calling out someone voting for you for good reasons actually fits the "voting for good reasons" scum-tell.  That scum-tell is usually more along the lines of "I acknowledge the overall case against me, I just think it's wrong".  Sudgy is largely in the first "scum-tell" camp.  Calling out one prosecutor to say "you make sense" doesn't achieve the desired result of acknowledging the suspicion against you.

If anything it's just still part of the first scum-tell.  i.e. scum-sudgy views the wagon on him as existing for "bad reasons", but acknowledges that at least one person has gotten a "good reason".  To me it just stops being scummy at that point.  It's not part of a scum-narrative any more, it's part of a reasonable reactions narrative.

As a result, I don't find nkirbit's reasons for voting compelling.  But ultimately, that's not why I'm voting for him.  The reason for my voting is because the line of activity seems off to me...jumpy maybe?  Wanting to be on the wagon, but worried about joining it for the "wrong reason"?  I think that's the gist of it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 11:07:04 am
Vote Count 1.yuma.3

chairs (1): sudgy
sudgy (4): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, nkirbit
ashersky (2): XerxesPraelor, Voltaire
XerxesPraelor (1): Eevee
Voltaire (2): Robz888, Ashersky
Eevee (1): Mail-mi
nkirbit (1): theorel

Not Voting (1): Galzria

volt... I don't think your vote is on sudgy... I think it is still on ashersky... At least according to the last vote count
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 18, 2013, 11:10:48 am
vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 18, 2013, 11:11:10 am
volt... I don't think your vote is on sudgy... I think it is still on ashersky... At least according to the last vote count

you're totally right. I'm part of the reason he fell to L-3.  :P

vote: sudgy. That's L-2 now.

PPE: L-1 ON SUDGY *flashing sirens*
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 18, 2013, 11:15:33 am
@yuma: I think you're seeing the effect of me being in 2 games at once, rather than anything alignment related.  I will not be doing that again.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 11:22:30 am
@yuma: I think you're seeing the effect of me being in 2 games at once, rather than anything alignment related.  I will not be doing that again.

That is true, I had forgotten about that in regard to your posting. That doesn't negate how I feel you are toeing the line regarding sudgy, but I am willing to give you some leeway for being in both games.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 18, 2013, 11:26:36 am
@yuma: I think you're seeing the effect of me being in 2 games at once, rather than anything alignment related.  I will not be doing that again.

This for me too, btw.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 12:38:44 pm
post count!

1. Eevee - 13
2. Robz888 - 120
3. Ashersky - 232
4. Voltaire - 88
5. Yuma - 101
6. Twistedarcher - 55
7. Theorel - 35
8. Sudgy - 148
9. Mail-Mi - 50
10. Chairs - 22
11. Nkirbit - 39
12. Xerxes - 11
13. Galzria - 52

Do I really have 120 posts???
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 12:39:20 pm
Just checked. The above is wrong. I only have 60 posts.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 12:40:02 pm
And ash only has 116.

Yeah, scrap the above post count, please.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 18, 2013, 12:42:11 pm
And ash only has 116.

Yeah, scrap the above post count, please.
Yuma likely did a CTRL+F for usernames, and that will double-count anyone who lists the same name for goko and isotropic.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 12:49:16 pm
And ash only has 116.

Yeah, scrap the above post count, please.
Yuma likely did a CTRL+F for usernames, and that will double-count anyone who lists the same name for goko and isotropic.

Sorry, I normally do a print screen and then do a count, which eliminates the "username" issue... (seriously why do people still list their isotropic username???) but I had trouble loading the printscreen so went with the other route, which counted some individuals double... thanks for correcting that.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 18, 2013, 12:52:54 pm
This is the worst time to go V/LA.  Check the V/LA thread for what it is.  I will be back late Saturday, so at the least, please don't lynch me until then.

Robz has gone lower on my scumreads, because his recent activity makes sense.

That leaves chairs, eevee, and mail-mi.  I would be fine voting for any of those.  How many other people want to vote one of them?  I have an hour before I go, and I want my vote to be somewhere useful.

PPE: yuma, I'm also wrong I think.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 18, 2013, 12:54:11 pm
Sudgy, of what you listed, I would be most comfortable with you parking your vote on chairs.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 12:55:34 pm
This is the worst time to go V/LA.  Check the V/LA thread for what it is.  I will be back late Saturday, so at the least, please don't lynch me until then.


Uhhh...... Don't lynch you before the deadline:

Day 1 ends on Saturday October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.[/color][/b]

Yeah... we will just wait until after the deadline to lynch you...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 12:56:16 pm
I think we need to consider having sudgy think about claiming before leaving as he won't be back until deadline is on top of us...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 12:57:31 pm
I think Sudgy should claim if there's someone out there willing to hammer.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 18, 2013, 12:57:58 pm
Crap, thought the deadline was Sunday...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 12:59:17 pm
I know that ash is willing to vote for sudgy... he was on him... so that might be considered "intent to hammer"
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 12:59:47 pm
I know that ash is willing to vote for sudgy... he was on him... so that might be considered "intent to hammer"

But ash won't be online until ~ 5 pm forum time...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 18, 2013, 01:01:30 pm
I see not everyone is participating in our meeting, a request for immediate attendance has been sent.

Vote Count 1.11:

chairs (2): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (6): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, Nkirbit, Eevee, Voltaire
ashersky (1): XerxesPraelor
Voltaire (2): Robz888, Ashersky
Eevee (1): mail-mi

Not Voting (1): Galzria

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Day 1 ends on October, 19 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 01:18:39 pm
seriously gusy... sudgy leaves in less than an hour and won't be back until ~ deadline... we need to talk about this...

IC Galz... this is probably where we want an IC to... you know... direct us... maybe...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:21:21 pm
I still think Sudgy is scum, and I will leave my vote there. I doubt a claim will do any good for me personally, like if he claims cop I am sure I will think he's scum fakeclaiming rather than an actual cop. That's the difficulty with D1 claims.

He should definitely claim before he goes, I guess, since I don't see the wagon dissolving without a good reason.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 18, 2013, 01:23:12 pm
Well, I'm a VT.  Yay.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:32:48 pm
Well, I'm a VT.  Yay.

Then why did you say your lynch would be the worst thing ever for town?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 01:37:39 pm
Well, I'm a VT.  Yay.

Then why did you say your lynch would be the worst thing ever for town?

(http://i.qkme.me/3ritvg.jpg)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 18, 2013, 01:40:42 pm
Well, I'm a VT.  Yay.

Then why did you say your lynch would be the worst thing ever for town?

I said that because I was saying it would be the stupidest lynch ever because I was so obviously town.

So, I'm getting lynched?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:41:28 pm
Well, I'm a VT.  Yay.

Then why did you say your lynch would be the worst thing ever for town?

I said that because I was saying it would be the stupidest lynch ever because I was so obviously town.

So, I'm getting lynched?

Yes, I'm going to hammer you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:41:51 pm
Well, I'm a VT.  Yay.

Then why did you say your lynch would be the worst thing ever for town?

I think he meant it would be the silliest lynch ever, ie on the flimsiest reasons, not that it would be terrible for town.

PPE: Sudgy agrees
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:42:36 pm
Well, I'm a VT.  Yay.

Then why did you say your lynch would be the worst thing ever for town?

I think he meant it would be the silliest lynch ever, ie on the flimsiest reasons, not that it would be terrible for town.

PPE: Sudgy agrees

That's not even close to what he said, and he deserves to die.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:42:48 pm
That what I expected if Sudgy was town...ugh. I hate these situations. I never ever know how to react to D1 claims, both choices are bad.

Robz, do you think he's scum?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:43:43 pm
I do agree with the points Nkirbit was making on Sudgy's reaction based on other games. This is WAY different than LOTR2 sudgy (where he was the town D1 lynch).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:44:53 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.

The above was a clear implication by sudgy that he was someone we didn't want to lose.

Why did you lie, sudgy?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:45:21 pm
That what I expected if Sudgy was town...ugh. I hate these situations. I never ever know how to react to D1 claims, both choices are bad.

Robz, do you think he's scum?

The reason I had for not thinking he was scum is no longer valid.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 18, 2013, 01:46:34 pm
If you guys want to lynch me for being town, go ahead.  Just know that it is probably one of the worst lynches ever on this site.

The above was a clear implication by sudgy that he was someone we didn't want to lose.

Why did you lie, sudgy?

I didn't, what TA said was what I meant to say.

Get ready for my real claim.  Mcmc, don't worry about it anymore.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 18, 2013, 01:47:32 pm
I am the SK.  You guys caught me for the entirely wrong reasons.  I would have done all those crazy votes at the beginning as town, I would have gotten that frustrated as town, I think this game would have been almost the exact same if I was town.  I would have done the same things, and I would have gotten lynched.  The only thing that may have changed is the way I reacted, but it still would have been similar.  That's why nkirbit's vote was one that made sense.  You guys didn't catch me, you got lucky that I happened to be an SK this game.

Since I'm still in the mindset of being town, to help you, imagine my wagon as a town wagon.  Since the same thing would have happened, it probably would be like a town wagon.  Look for people who got on my wagon suspiciously for scum.

We need to find a different way to catch scum, at least for me.  I get lynched every game for being me, not for being scum.  That's what happened this game.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 18, 2013, 01:47:52 pm
Alright, goodbye, everyone.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:48:09 pm
vote: sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:48:24 pm
Well then!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:49:00 pm
Sudgy, there's no such thing as catching someone for the wrong reasons, although believing you have been caught for the wrong reasons is a classic scum tell.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:49:24 pm
I disagree that I caught you for the wrong reasons. I thought you were scummy because of your actions, and your reactions reinforced my viewpoint.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 18, 2013, 01:50:28 pm
I disagree that I caught you for the wrong reasons. I thought you were scummy because of your actions, and your reactions reinforced my viewpoint.

agreed. Well, one less night kill is nothing to cry about... And we know more about the setup! (w/o my no vigging plan at that!)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:50:39 pm
I do agree that for bandwagon analysis purposes we should treat this as a town wagon tomorrow.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 18, 2013, 01:51:54 pm
I do agree that for bandwagon analysis purposes we should treat this as a town wagon tomorrow.

Well, it's difficult. Because we had scummy, real reasons to think he was scum, and we were right. But this is also, from a mafia viewpoint, a wagon that they wanted to push. So it's a mix of both, I guess, but there's stuff to gain from treating it asa wagon on a town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 18, 2013, 01:52:34 pm
I will say, sudgy, you are in good company. Galzria was lynched Day 1 as a Serial Killer in Mafia XV.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 18, 2013, 01:52:42 pm
THREAD LOCKED
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 18, 2013, 01:59:34 pm
flavor to be added shortly

Vote Count 1.12:

chairs (2): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (7): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, Nkirbit, Eevee, Voltaire, Robz888
ashersky (1): XerxesPraelor
Voltaire (1): Ashersky
Eevee (1): mail-mi

Not Voting (1): Galzria

With 13 alive, it took 7 to lynch.

sudgy has been lynched.  He was the Spirit of Zhang Jiao, Serial Killer.

Night 1 has begun.  All night actions are due by Sunday, October 20, at 2:00 p.m. Forum time.

All players are to PM both mods at least once during the night to confirm their continued participation in the game.

This thread is STILL LOCKED.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 20, 2013, 11:35:31 am
Huzzah! My master plan has worked, I see cao cao has disposed of the spy. Who dares to challenge the mighty Han? What, it can't be, Zhang Jiao I thought he was defeated at the battle of the yellow turbans. These are dangerous times, prepare for battle men we must crush all who would oppose peace in our land!

Thread still locked.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 20, 2013, 02:21:51 pm
Quickly quickly, it appears we have been attacked during the night.

Robz888, The Great Gongsun Zan has been slain, although he was only a no face officer he was a great general. His loss will be suffered among all of us. We will need to redouble our efforts and find those responsible.

Whats this, Ashersky, Huang Gai has also been found dead! As a Town 1-shot Doctor he was always here to protect us. True he was hardened by the years of battle but his experience remains unrivaled.

We have no time to lose as Dong Zhou's forces are on the move!


Day 2 has begun

Day 2 begins on October 20 at 2:30 pm and ends on October 30 at 8:00 pm


Sorry for being terrible
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 20, 2013, 02:24:45 pm
Vote Count 2.0:

Not Voting (10): Eevee, Voltaire, Yuma, TwistedArcher, Theorel, Mail-mi, Chairs, Nkirbit, Xerses, Galzria

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

Day 2 ends on October, 30 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 02:26:23 pm
so robz and ash are dead? The flavor doesn't make that clear?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 02:30:27 pm
and it appears we have a vig...?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 20, 2013, 02:32:04 pm


The Great Gongsun Zan has been slain he was a no face officer

Huang Gai has also been found dead a Town 1-shot Doctor


...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 02:33:54 pm


Robz The Great Gongsun Zan has been slain he was a no face officer

ashersky Huang Gai has also been found dead a Town 1-shot Doctor


...

should it say what I changed above? I mean I can look at the vote count and see they are missing and assume that is who they are, but customarily you put the fds names of who is killed next to the flavor names.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 20, 2013, 02:34:11 pm


The Great Gongsun Zan has been slain he was a no face officer

Huang Gai has also been found dead a Town 1-shot Doctor


...
Are those ash and robz?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 02:34:45 pm
Quote fail:



Robz The Great Gongsun Zan has been slain he was a no face officer

ashersky Huang Gai has also been found dead a Town 1-shot Doctor


...

should it say what I changed above? I mean I can look at the vote count and see they are missing and assume that is who they are, but customarily you put the fds names of who is killed next to the flavor names.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 20, 2013, 03:05:13 pm
So, we either have a serial killer or a vig shot Robz night 1 in an ironic turn of events? A serial killer looks more likely to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 20, 2013, 03:20:48 pm
So, we either have a serial killer or a vig shot Robz night 1 in an ironic turn of events? A serial killer looks more likely to me.
Um... We lynched the SK.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 20, 2013, 03:27:19 pm
So, we either have a serial killer or a vig shot Robz night 1 in an ironic turn of events? A serial killer looks more likely to me.
Um... We lynched the SK.
That's true! Yay us!

So, a vig DID decide to shoot Robz. I find this amusing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 03:33:18 pm
So, we either have a serial killer or a vig shot Robz night 1 in an ironic turn of events? A serial killer looks more likely to me.
Um... We lynched the SK.
That's true! Yay us!

So, a vig DID decide to shoot Robz. I find this amusing.

And you don't think they shot Ash because....?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 20, 2013, 03:38:02 pm
Quickly quickly, it appears we have been attacked during the night.

The Great Gongsun Zan has been slain, although he was only a no face officer he was a great general. His loss will be suffered among all of us. We will need to redouble our efforts and find those responsible.

Whats this, Huang Gai has also been found dead! As a Town 1-shot Doctor he was always here to protect us. True he was hardened by the years of battle but his experience remains unrivaled.

We have no time to lose as Dong Zhou's forces are on the move!


Day 2 has begun

Day 2 begins on October 20 at 2:30 pm and ends on October 30 at 8:00 pm


Ummm who died?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 20, 2013, 03:39:04 pm
Oooooh, bad mod is bad :( ashersky is huang gai and robz888 is gongsun zan. They are dead
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 20, 2013, 03:48:29 pm
So, we either have a serial killer or a vig shot Robz night 1 in an ironic turn of events? A serial killer looks more likely to me.
Um... We lynched the SK.
That's true! Yay us!

So, a vig DID decide to shoot Robz. I find this amusing.

And you don't think they shot Ash because....?
Well, to me ash was clearly the towniest player yesterday because of his claim. Sure, someone could have disagreed with me, but enough to decide to vig him day 1? Highly highly unlikely, I think! I get now giving him huge amounts of town cred for his clai, I don't think it would have made anyone think he is more likely to be scum.

I do see someone who thinks vigging is protown wanting to vig Robz though, seems plausible.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 04:05:45 pm
I disagree 100% Eevee. I think vigging Ash was the smartest play a Vig could make.  It tells the town a great deal of information, while costing them very little - especially as Ash should've used his power last night.

I think scum ABSOLUTELY didn't want him dead because they knew his claim was true already. Now we know for a fact that MDDV is absolutely true. And we know there was a SK.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 04:07:42 pm
Vig, don't claim yet. Even if you're one shot. Wait until later this game day.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:11:17 pm
vote: eevee
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 04:11:24 pm
Vig, if you're more than one shot, then you know that there's only a single T rolled in this setup.

MDDVVT-x

This means we have an additional power role out there. If you exist (Cop, Role Blocker, Vig who didn't shoot, etc), you also know the full setup now.

Mafia knew what roles they have. They know if they're 3T or 1T already. We'll know by the end of the day, but I want reactions and discussion before we do.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 20, 2013, 04:14:07 pm
vote: eevee
Is this a policy vote or a suspicion vote?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:14:57 pm
Vig, don't claim yet. Even if you're one shot. Wait until later this game day.

I think for clarity purposes it is also worth saying that the doc should not claim, despite us knowing there is one. I don't think anyone would in this circumstance, but well... you never know what some people will do.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:15:35 pm
vote: eevee
Is this a policy vote or a suspicion vote?

Both, but more suspicion. Your... "oh, I forgot we just barely lynched the SK" looked too forced to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 04:16:18 pm
Vig, don't claim yet. Even if you're one shot. Wait until later this game day.

I think for clarity purposes it is also worth saying that the doc should not claim, despite us knowing there is one. I don't think anyone would in this circumstance, but well... you never know what some people will do.

I agree, although I'm fairly certain who that is.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:18:13 pm
quick day1 post count: this may be slightly off for some players, but not by very much:

Players:
1. Eevee - 22
2. Robz888 - 71
3. Ashersky - 116

4. Voltaire - 86
5. Yuma - 119
6. Twistedarcher - 65
7. Theorel - 37
8. Sudgy - 81
9. Mail-Mi - 28
10. Chairs - 23
11. Nkirbit - 39
12. Xerses - 11
13. Galzria - 57
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 20, 2013, 04:23:40 pm
This is pretty good data for town. I wish we'd seen a mafia flip out of the vigilante shot, but this gives us near perfect setup knowledge at least.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:27:29 pm
So coming into the day I was most suspicious of twistedarcher and theorel. At some point I will lay out my suspicions of them a bit more in depth.

I am not happy at all with the vig shooting who they shot. At the end of day I had pretty good town reads on both ash and robz and can't fathom why the vig would shoot either of them. Dumb move vig, dumb move. If you are going to shoot, shot a lurker like chairs or eevee, don't shoot one of our best town players or a claimed 1-shot cop!

DUMB!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:29:46 pm
So coming into the day I was most suspicious of twistedarcher and theorel. At some point I will lay out my suspicions of them a bit more in depth.

I am not happy at all with the vig shooting who they shot. At the end of day I had pretty good town reads on both ash and robz and can't fathom why the vig would shoot either of them. Dumb move vig, dumb move. If you are going to shoot, shot a lurker like chairs or eevee, don't shoot one of our best town players or a claimed 1-shot cop Doc!

DUMB!

fixed that for me...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 04:31:07 pm
Again, I disagree. I think it was a really good shot from the Vig. It does minimal damage, while giving maximum information. Very, very good choice for the Vig. Awesome.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:35:00 pm
Yipee... one of my strongest town reads is dead and all the information I received out of it was information I was already assuming to be true. WHAT A TRADE!!!

While players that I have very little of a read on because of low posting continue to live on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 04:36:33 pm
Yipee... one of my strongest town reads is dead and all the information I received out of it was information I was already assuming to be true. WHAT A TRADE!!!

While players that I have very little of a read on because of low posting continue to live on.

That's nice for you Yuma. Big round of applause.

For the rest of us mere mortals however, we're granted with significantly greater information that we now know to absolutely be true, without question.

Yes, it was a great trade.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 20, 2013, 04:40:57 pm
Yipee... one of my strongest town reads is dead and all the information I received out of it was information I was already assuming to be true. WHAT A TRADE!!!

While players that I have very little of a read on because of low posting continue to live on.

That's nice for you Yuma. Big round of applause.

For the rest of us mere mortals however, we're granted with significantly greater information that we now know to absolutely be true, without question.

Yes, it was a great trade.
I'm with galz here. We're now 100 percent on 5 out of 8 (7? 9?) letters.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:41:22 pm
Yipee... one of my strongest town reads is dead and all the information I received out of it was information I was already assuming to be true. WHAT A TRADE!!!

While players that I have very little of a read on because of low posting continue to live on.

That's nice for you Yuma. Big round of applause.

For the rest of us mere mortals however, we're granted with significantly greater information that we now know to absolutely be true, without question.

Yes, it was a great trade.

Well, yes, if all of you ignoramuses hadn't believed the worst about ashersky and automatically assumed that he must have been trying to pull a fast one on you and seen that his claim was obviously real and sincere then you all could have had the same information as me. Yes, be cautious with claims, but you guys all just went into major panic mode and wanted to lynch someone that was very, very town. Obviously the vig sided with you, because you are the all knowing, IC, on this side of the equation and that is very frustrating.

Big round of applause to you for leading town down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories!

And you know what would have been even better information? Trying to hit someone that had a chance to be scum... chairs, nkirbit, voltaire, eevee, twisted, theorel. Hitting scum gives us info and eliminates scum. The vig shot for information purposes only and for that reason it SUCKED!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 04:45:06 pm
I don't think anyone actually wanted to lynch Ashersky, Yuma.  Or even thought he was scum.  At least for me, I was just saying it was possible.

And I'm glad that you've narrowed the pool of possible scum down to just 6 players.  Care to enlighten the rest of us?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 04:45:34 pm
Besides, the vig could have shot Robz.  We just don't know.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 20, 2013, 04:46:35 pm
I think it's safe to assume Vig is not 1-shot. 1-shot vig shooting Robz or Ash would be really silly, this seems more like a shot from a full vig.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 04:48:25 pm
I think it's safe to assume Vig is not 1-shot. 1-shot vig shooting Robz or Ash would be really silly, this seems more like a shot from a full vig.

I agree.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:49:24 pm
I don't think anyone actually wanted to lynch Ashersky, Yuma.  Or even thought he was scum.  At least for me, I was just saying it was possible.

And I'm glad that you've narrowed the pool of possible scum down to just 6 players.  Care to enlighten the rest of us?

the six players were just examples. I just put down names of people the vig coudl have shot that would ahve been better than ash.

and...this would disagree with you. L-2 is pretty serious, sure one was ash, but still L-2 means people think he is scum.

Vote Count 1.7:
Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

And you are right. We don't know the vig shot ash, chances are pretty high. But Robz was also a very bad choice I think.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 20, 2013, 04:49:35 pm
I think Robz was a very reasonable target for a town vig, if he was the type to believe in shooting night 1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 04:54:29 pm
and...this would disagree with you. L-2 is pretty serious, sure one was ash, but still L-2 means people think he is scum.

Vote Count 1.7:
Ashersky (5): Robz888, Galzria, ashersky, voltaire, XerxesPraelor

This is actually an interesting thing to think about... Ash's wagon here.  Let's talk about the votes here.

I don't think any town member yesterday could have realistically voted for Ash with the idea that he's the best lynch.  I just don't.  Even if you don't believe his claim, he's still not the right lynch.

We clearly have some town members here voting for Ash because they were frustrated with his play.  Robz and Galzria amongst them.  Voltaire and Xerxes are the two voters of unknown alignment?

Do we think that scum would look to jump on this wagon, faking frustration (or having actual frustration) with Ash, and hoping the wagon would go through?  I'm actually torn... I think scum want to avoid "obviously bad wagons" that won't go through for town credit, so I'm going to give some towncredit to Xerxes and Voltaire for being on this wagon.  I think it's just more likely that scum avoid the Ashersky situation entirely.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:55:22 pm
Do we think that scum would look to jump on this wagon, faking frustration (or having actual frustration) with Ash, and hoping the wagon would go through?  I'm actually torn... I think scum want to avoid "obviously bad wagons" that won't go through for town credit, so I'm going to give some towncredit to Xerxes and Voltaire for being on this wagon.  I think it's just more likely that scum avoid the Ashersky situation entirely.

I agree
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 04:55:51 pm
I resign the game to Yuma. He's obviously an all knowing God who is right 100% of the time on everything, and his opinions and beliefs are far more valuable than that of the entire town. My vote mirrors his.

Or, wait, no, he's not. He's only looking at the game through his own filter of what he thinks to be true and doesn't give a fuck what anybody else might see. The fact is the majority of the town doesn't have the obviously perfect reads that he does. The play by our Vig helps the majority of the players, even if All Knowing Yuma already had all that information.

The fact is, if we have a full Vig, he knows that MVV is true. Ashersky was claiming that MVVDD-T-x was true. That's a VERY specific setup. From his perspective it's much more likely Ash could've been lying, because he already knew of two extra letters that weren't in the setup. That alone makes Ash's claim more questionable.

And the fact is, Ash was essentially a VT after N1. A vig could've done a lot MORE damage by hitting a different PR (like the real Doctor). Yes, he could've hit scum, but this was a VT trade for near full information for EVERYBODY, not just Yuma.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 04:59:24 pm
I resign the game to Yuma. He's obviously an all knowing God who is right 100% of the time on everything, and his opinions and beliefs are far more valuable than that of the entire town. My vote mirrors his.

Or, wait, no, he's not. He's only looking at the game through his own filter of what he thinks to be true and doesn't give a fuck what anybody else might see. The fact is the majority of the town doesn't have the obviously perfect reads that he does. The play by our Vig helps the majority of the players, even if All Knowing Yuma already had all that information.

The fact is, if we have a full Vig, he knows that MVV is true. Ashersky was claiming that MVVDD-T-x was true. That's a VERY specific setup. From his perspective it's much more likely Ash could've been lying, because he already knew of two extra letters that weren't in the setup. That alone makes Ash's claim more questionable.

And the fact is, Ash was essentially a VT after N1. A vig could've done a lot MORE damage by hitting a different PR (like the real Doctor). Yes, he could've hit scum, but this was a VT trade for near full information for EVERYBODY, not just Yuma.

alright, this got out of hand... sorry galz.

This is what I wrote to mcmc and voltgloss a few minutes ago:

Quote
I am really not that mad at Galz or the vig, but I am trying to pick a fight with him to see if I can get mafia to latch onto me with suspicion for arguing with the IC. It is a bait, but a pretty simple one. I hope I just don't piss Galz off too much in the process. Cause I actually kinda agree with him, but am not admitting to it in hopes of creating this controversy... and maybe, just maybe scum will push me as being suspicious for it?

If not... it is early enough in the day that this argument isn't a distraction.

I am going to pull the plug on it without giving it a chance to work, because I see I have pissed you off. While it was my intent to get an argument going, I didn't want to make you super mad, but rather give mafia a chance to find me suspicious for it--something I would jump on mafia for doing--but getting you this upset isn't worth it.

So... sorry.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 05:12:00 pm
Yuma, I'm almost certain you're town. I really am, I just want you, and everybody, to look through a lens that isn't just your own. I understand you had reads, and reasons for them. And hey, your reads we're good. But I don't try to be popular as an IC. I try to make sure I consider everything, as unlikely or unpopular as it may be.

I don't LIKE that Ash was killed. I would love to see Mafia dead instead. But I think Ash's death does wonders for most people here, even if it didn't do anything for you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 05:14:27 pm
Yuma, I'm almost certain you're town. I really am, I just want you, and everybody, to look through a lens that isn't just your own. I understand you had reads, and reasons for them. And hey, your reads we're good. But I don't try to be popular as an IC. I try to make sure I consider everything, as unlikely or unpopular as it may be.

I don't LIKE that Ash was killed. I would love to see Mafia dead instead. But I think Ash's death does wonders for most people here, even if it didn't do anything for you.

I know that. Once I saw your response to my initial argument I agreed with you, but continued to disagree with you to see if I could get someone to jump on me for it (long shot maybe, but I have seen it happen before where someone is perceived as scummy for fighting with the IC)... so I continued to play the fool and ass, but maybe a little too hard as it actually got under your skin, which wasn't my intention.

So attempt failed, I agree with you (for the most part)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 05:26:59 pm
At the moment, the players I'm most interested in lynching are:

Eevee
TA
Theorel
Chairs
Mail-Mi.

At the moment, I'm unsure out of this group.  But this is definitely where I want to focus.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 05:34:58 pm
Yuma, I'm almost certain you're town. I really am, I just want you, and everybody, to look through a lens that isn't just your own. I understand you had reads, and reasons for them. And hey, your reads we're good. But I don't try to be popular as an IC. I try to make sure I consider everything, as unlikely or unpopular as it may be.

I don't LIKE that Ash was killed. I would love to see Mafia dead instead. But I think Ash's death does wonders for most people here, even if it didn't do anything for you.

I know that. Once I saw your response to my initial argument I agreed with you, but continued to disagree with you to see if I could get someone to jump on me for it (long shot maybe, but I have seen it happen before where someone is perceived as scummy for fighting with the IC)... so I continued to play the fool and ass, but maybe a little too hard as it actually got under your skin, which wasn't my intention.

So attempt failed, I agree with you (for the most part)

Yeah... I wasn't riled up by the first reply... the second one bugged me though. Sorry. :(

That said... I think you're idea was good, and that's a large part of why I stayed so hard on Ash yesterday. I wouldn't have seen him lynched, but I wanted to see who backed me and who didn't. Not that it's a perfect system. Town sheeps IC's all too often... *cough* *cough*... ;D

Still, that's where I would look, plus sudgy (who scum had no reason to protect or avoid).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 05:38:54 pm
Yuma, I'm almost certain you're town. I really am, I just want you, and everybody, to look through a lens that isn't just your own. I understand you had reads, and reasons for them. And hey, your reads we're good. But I don't try to be popular as an IC. I try to make sure I consider everything, as unlikely or unpopular as it may be.

I don't LIKE that Ash was killed. I would love to see Mafia dead instead. But I think Ash's death does wonders for most people here, even if it didn't do anything for you.

I know that. Once I saw your response to my initial argument I agreed with you, but continued to disagree with you to see if I could get someone to jump on me for it (long shot maybe, but I have seen it happen before where someone is perceived as scummy for fighting with the IC)... so I continued to play the fool and ass, but maybe a little too hard as it actually got under your skin, which wasn't my intention.

So attempt failed, I agree with you (for the most part)

Yeah... I wasn't riled up by the first reply... the second one bugged me though. Sorry. :(

That said... I think you're idea was good, and that's a large part of why I stayed so hard on Ash yesterday. I wouldn't have seen him lynched, but I wanted to see who backed me and who didn't. Not that it's a perfect system. Town sheeps IC's all too often... *cough* *cough*... ;D

Still, that's where I would look, plus sudgy (who scum had no reason to protect or avoid).

as I nkiribt and I talked about I don't think it is the people that followed you that are suspicious... that is really only voltaire and xerxes. I don't find them particularily scummy for what they did as their votes were frustration votes for the most part. I think it is the people that were in the middle that are suspicious. That didn't commit on a stance either way. That kinda shied away from the wagon but didn't argue heavily against it.

Theorel I think jumps out the most in regard to this. I think there are others, but a reread will help pin that down.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 20, 2013, 10:18:07 pm
I'm going to assume infinite-vig, because as others have noted 1-shot vig was unlikely to shoot last night.
Assuming that's true we have MDDVV?T.  So, there's a vig, doctor, and other PR out there.
I was going to say the vig was an IC, because he can shoot counter-claims, but then I remembered that there's a roleblocker.  So, that actually doesn't work in this case.  Vig should probably NOT claim today, because we want him to shoot to restore parity, and a roleblocker can keep that from happening.

I don't see value in speculating about who killed whom.  All it does is help scum narrow down who the vig is.  They know who they killed, they know who the vig killed.  Let's stop noting how surprised we are that one or the other died, because that just tells scum who the likeliest vigs are (accepting town lying for WIFOM, which is always dangerous).

Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

The sudgy wagon is potentially pretty useful to analyze.  Scum thought he would flip town, while town very well might have thought he would flip scum.  There might be some discrepancies to pick up on there.  I think I'll start out looking there tomorrow.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 10:18:31 pm
So theorel was obsessed... obsessed with the sudgy lynch. I just reread him and it is about all he talks about. Over and over and over again...

let me show you: (lots of text here, see below for what I have to say, I am including the text to show you how much there is!)

So, there was this thing, where sudgy was found scummy for being kind of ridiculous.  Okay, reread yuma's reasoning, so basically, he's forcing RVS to get out of a bad situation...The fact that ash and sudgy had similar reasoning is kind of funny (i.e. sudgy is trying to play like ash).  I wish people wouldn't try to play like ash...one ash is enough.  I'll keep an eye out.

I just checked out Samurai's and Ninjas.  And winterspartan's lynch-wagon looks like it started on April 14, while game started April 6 (was there an early wagon I missed maybe?)  I'm maybe being misunderstood or misunderstanding.

sudgy went to 4 votes, essentially as the first item to happen coming out of RVS.  (I guess there was the TwistedArcher thing before that)...And we're like 2 days into the game, right?  That just seems quick to hit 4 votes in a 13-player game.  I don't think this wagon is heading towards a lynch, it's too early.  If this started heading towards a lynch, people would probably oppose it (I would...I think there's more info to get out of day1 if we don't lynch the very first player that does anything scummy right away).  I think that's normal though.  I'm wondering if it should be analyzed differently in light of that.

If a wagon builds up quickly towards a lynch, then we look at players that are building it with some suspicion, because it looks like they may be trying to quicken a mislynch.  Mid-day wagons look like this.  They work a lot like end-day wagons, except sometimes you can back off the wagon, see the target as townie, and analyze the wagon as such.
Early-day wagons are a bit of a different beast.  No one is reasonably going to push an early-wagon to a premature day end...I just don't see the majority of a town going along with it (outside of something really apparent). 

So, how might scum be trying to manipulate such a wagon?  Would they vote for it?  Push against it because, hey town should oppose this quick lynch?  Be ambivalent towards it?  Hmm..probably depends on the player.  Pushing against it though seems like a good way to "look townie", really regardless of the alignment of the target.  It's an early wagon, there are probably misunderstandings, and the lynch probably won't go through.  It's maybe not as obvious as the constant town-read scum-guy, but something of a derivative of the same sort.  Now, it's worth noting that it looks like something town would do, because town would do it.  It's not automatic scum-read or anything, just some thoughts on where it seems likely to find scum in this situation.  I'm wondering if that stance might be a good starting place to try to find scum?  I dunno, I'll try to look over it sometime, although I won't probably be around a lot this weekend.

I'll try...here's a summary:
One of the few interaction non-theory type thingies that's happened in this thread is sudgy's wagon.  I wonder if there are any scum interactions to glean from it?  What should I be looking for?
Supposition 1: that wagon was not going to lead directly to a lynch.  (maybe later in the day, but not before more "stuff" happens)
Supposition 2: The "townie" thing to do was oppose it for growing too fast.
Conclusion: The simplest thing for scum to do for town-cred would be to oppose it, and this wouldn't "cost" them anything (if it were a town-lynch...normally opposing a town-lynch has the cost of an increased likelihood of a scum lynch)

Leads to Question: Did anyone oppose it in a way that looked scummy?

Anyways, I'm actually going to go look now...

Hmm...reading back I think I was actually arguing on reasons of xerxes' vote.  i.e. I don't think scum would have pushed this lynch in a scummy fashion, because it wasn't likely to go through.  Which led to conjecture as to what would be a scummy way to act towards it.

Anyways, looking back the following players interacted in some fashion:
TA (first vote)
yuma (second vote, added a couple quotes)
mail-mi: descriptive of the OMGUSRVS stuff.
nkribit: quasi-defense (i.e. states that the reasons for the vote read neutral to him)
ash (third vote, adds the comment that sudgy is copying his meta)
Eevee (fourth vote...frustration + believable scum-narrative)
Xerxes: counter-vote on TA.

Theorel: derailed the conversation (sorry about that; to be fair, I'm also the one that tried to re-rail it)

So, people who opposed the sudgy-wagon directly: nkirbit, Xerxes.
People who opposed the sudgy-wagon indirectly: mail-mi, myself.
People who ignored the sudgy-wagon everyone not mentioned above, initially myself also.

I would argue that nkirbit most closely resembles my proposed scum-narrative.  Xerxes also looks scummy for opposing the wagon AND simultaneously pushing suspicion in a different direction.  OTOH, that could be new-player caused rather than scum-caused.  As a new-player I'm not sure how to read the action...it seems too clumsy for scum-play?  But new-scum might end up being clumsy.  Anyways, it weighs in less for that.

Okay, so re-read nkirbit...
He also: does some probability arguing (I don't understand the "haven't done theater" comment, is it relevant?), pushes ash to claim instead of implying his claim, and points out the huge flaw in follow-the-cop (i.e. ROLEBLOCKER).
That last one is definitely pro-town.  Scum could have waited until a cop unwisely claimed.  They could have jumped on it early for town-cred, but it seems more likely they'd hesitate.

Meh, I'm going to vote: nkirbit anyways, and see what happens (maybe it'll result in my having a vote on nkirbit?  Ha, I made the joke before you could)

Okay, I need to look back over this sudgy thing.

Okay, so here's the sudgy case (and defense) as far as I understand it:
1. sudgy non-RVS voted ash in the middle of his RVS.
DEFENSE: It was for reactions, he didn't really mean the case on ash.
1.a. That doesn't really make sense, because he didn't search out reactions.  Also (added by me) he jumped straight back into RVS when he got the reactions (which was votes on him).  He never pursued any results on his reactions for his bad case.

2. sudgy was trying to be like ash, but said he wasn't.
DEFENSE: misunderstood.  He meant that he didn't mean the case.  (This is sufficiently reasonable to my mind)

3. sudgy disrupted the transition out of RVS with more RVS.  (i.e. the TA votes at this time were non-RVS).
DEFENSE: He did not realize the TA votes were non-RVS.  By which he meant, he just thought back, didn't remember any non-RVS stuff, and went ahead and voted.  (This seems fair to me again, because I didn't remember them myself.  The sudgy-wagon is the first non-RVS activity that I remember...that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it wasn't memorable).

4. sudgy is trying to act towny, which is what he would do as scum.  (this is TA's case I think?  This is ridiculous to me, that's also presumably what he'd do as town.  He's pointing out pro-town things, which he has stated is what he would do as town or scum.  This isn't a case, basically at all).
DEFENSE: "sudgy isn't good at defending himself".  (Odd that this is the one he has trouble with.  I mean seriously, someone points out pro-town things and says, "looks scummy for being pro-town"...and that's when he starts having trouble defending himself?)

5. sudgy seems to be forcing a meta-change, which is usually scummy.
DEFENSE: none offered yet, he hasn't posted since the accusation.

1 seems strongest to me.  5 is potentially strong, though I don't have a good feel for sudgy's meta at this time to verify it.  4 is weird, and is what caused me confusion in this whole thing.  The case is super-weak, but he can't defend it.  It felt sooo weak to me, that I couldn't see how it was the basis for this renewed push on sudgy.  Maybe the renewed push has more to do with 2 and 3, and it took him so long to answer those points, that 4 just kind of slipped in?

I'm gonna sleep on this.  I'm going back and forth here.  I can see a slipping town becoming persecuted...I can also see a scum error becoming out-of-control situation.  I'm leaning slipping town, because it seems like it's happened so many times...

In other news, I don't get nkirbit's vote here.  It's a complete switch from everything here is null to a vote with no explanation.

Okay, so it appears that the actual case on sudgy (outside the misunderstanding-contradiction) is that he's making "pro-town statements" while not having "pro-town play".  I can see that.

The wagon though, has to do with him blundering, regardless of his alignment.  He's under the spot-light without town contributions to point to.  There are other players without town contributions to point to (Robz for instance).  I'm not so sure about anything chairs or Voltaire or mail-mi have contributed to scumhunting. either.  So, it's not like sudgy is the only player not to be doing any scum-hunting.  He just happens to be the one in focus.

Arguably, he's being at least a little active while doing that...that's why he's in the spot-light.  But at this point he's pure defense, which is what happens when town gets persecuted (also when scum gets persecuted).  So, I do believe that he's being attacked for blundering into the spotlight.  Whether he's done so as town or scum is uncertain.  Personally, I'm inclined to view him as a little scummy, but not worth any immediate action.

sudgy - I dunno, I'm more convinced he'll be flipping town.  But we're in this weird case of alternatives all being quickly rejected as the sudgy wagon builds up again.  I just don't see sudgy as scummy enough to be the default-lynch.  I mean, I don't think he's super-townie...I dunno.  I'll vote here to ensure a lynch if it's needed, but I just don't get the fervor about it.

Um...probably because it's several thoughts together.
I find nkirbit a little scummy.  His overall play seems "off".  Going from "whole case on sudgy is neutral" to contradiction->vote, to contradiction explained->unvote, it's all neutral again, popping onto xerxes for voting ash, then popping onto sudgy for "panicking", finally sudgy-vote confirmed because he said nkirbit's vote "made sense".

I also disagree with him on a couple of his points regarding sudgy:

I disagree on the panicking thing.  I think town often gets bogged down in defending themselves, while scum is often on the lookout for an alternate lynch.  Any lynch which isn't a scum-mate is good for scum, while town doesn't particularly want to deflect onto another townie.  If there were another wagon out there, I would expect sudgy to be on it, because they have a higher chance of being scum.  But no one's really found a compelling case outside of sudgy (by which I mean one that's caught on) to call sudgy scum for his inability to do so seems wrong.  It's not like he hasn't been voting or giving reads, he's just not finding a compelling case.

The "confirmation" thing I think is misplaced also.  I mean, any reaction to a vote can fit a scum-tell.  "You're voting me for terrible reasons" fits the scum-tell of scum that's caught for what they view as bad reasons.  "You're voting me for good reasons" fits the scum-tell of scum that can't really defend itself, so acknowledges the case in hopes of it disappearing. 

I don't think calling out someone voting for you for good reasons actually fits the "voting for good reasons" scum-tell.  That scum-tell is usually more along the lines of "I acknowledge the overall case against me, I just think it's wrong".  Sudgy is largely in the first "scum-tell" camp.  Calling out one prosecutor to say "you make sense" doesn't achieve the desired result of acknowledging the suspicion against you.

If anything it's just still part of the first scum-tell.  i.e. scum-sudgy views the wagon on him as existing for "bad reasons", but acknowledges that at least one person has gotten a "good reason".  To me it just stops being scummy at that point.  It's not part of a scum-narrative any more, it's part of a reasonable reactions narrative.

As a result, I don't find nkirbit's reasons for voting compelling.  But ultimately, that's not why I'm voting for him.  The reason for my voting is because the line of activity seems off to me...jumpy maybe?  Wanting to be on the wagon, but worried about joining it for the "wrong reason"?  I think that's the gist of it.

So that is a lot. He wrote more text (I would bet, I haven't actually backed this up, but it certainly looks like it) about the sudgy lynch than the players advocating the sudgy lynch and to me it looks like a player who is straddeling the sudgy lynch expecting him to end up town and thus be on the townier side of the wagon. I think of especial interest is how toward the end theorel began to use this idea that sudgy would flip town to be suspicious of nkirbit.

I have been wary of theorel for a while now. I originally thought he might be sudgy's partner.... casually saying good things about the wagon, but never really joining it and ultimately saying that he thought he would flip town. of course that can't be the case anymore. But I do think there is a case to be made on theorel here as mafia expecting sudgy to flip town, slightly encouraging the wagon, over analyzing the "wagon" for scum who he can hand select and find scummy because he differs in reads over sudgy.

yeah.... vote: theorel I want to look more at this, but I feel good about it at this point.

I should mention that theorel was a little more adamant that ashersky was likely town that I remembered, he was pretty adamant, but again... is that scum siding up on the side of someone he knows to be town?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 20, 2013, 10:19:52 pm
and still feel good after theorel's first post of today.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 10:21:37 pm
Vote: Theorel.

I like it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 20, 2013, 10:24:09 pm
Vote: Theorel
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 10:26:17 pm
Theorel's continual scum-hunting on Sudgy's wagon is similar to what I did to Ashersky's wagon all of day1 as scum in CLUE.  Take the player you know to be town (or in this case, non-mafia), oppose the wagon, and find people scummy for being on a town wagon.

He analyzes everyone in context of that wagon, which while is a valid technique for town to use, is only part of the picture town should be looking at.

His case on me was also really bad.  And I know it's a case on a town member, so I find that a little suspicious.  Plus it's just so wrong... Town members need to worry about who they're throwing the suspicion onto, because in some ways if a town member under fire throws suspicion off himself and another town member gets lynched, that's even worse than the original town member just getting lynched!  But if mafia (or SK), throw suspicion off, they're not particularly worried where it goes... anywhere but here!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 20, 2013, 10:27:47 pm
I think of especial interest is how toward the end theorel began to use this idea that sudgy would flip town to be suspicious of nkirbit.

I agree with the case overall, but I agree with this point most of all. Analyzing the wagon of a towny, assuming he's town, before he flips town is a scummy thing. Town wants to figure out if Sudgy is town -- scum wants to figure out who looks scummy when Sudgy DOES flip town.

Nkirbit did this same thing D1 in Clue on Ashersky's wagon when Ash was town, and sure enough Nkirbit was mafia there.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 10:31:19 pm
Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 20, 2013, 10:33:25 pm
Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)

I agree that it was never happening. But doesn't the fact that it was obvious that Ash wouldn't be lynched take away the disincentive for scum to hop on his wagon?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 20, 2013, 10:33:47 pm
Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)

That lynch wasn't happening unless Ashersky confessed to being scum. I noted at one point that I was happy with a Sudgy lynch, and would've moved there if I was needed prior to the deadline. But I wanted to continue to push on Ashersky and be there if at all possible at deadline because I wanted to afford scum every opportunity to join me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 10:37:31 pm
Okay, well, stuff happened yesterday.  As noted, there was an ash wagon that can be looked into (either side of it, staying off or getting on).  I don't see where the view that non-commital stances are scummy comes from.  Scum knew ash was town, and they could very well have argued that point with confidence.  The question really shouldn't be what stance was taken, but how it was taken.

I do agree with this... staying away isn't specifically scummy.  It could be mafia not getting dragged in the fight, town not wanting to take part, either party looking in and going, "People yelling, I'm not posting until they stop!"  People not posting or ignoring the Ashersky issue isn't scummy.  But I think what Voltaire and Xerxes did, voting for Ash, is towny.  Because I think scum would know that Ash is town and not want to look bad at some point, and there's no way Ash was ever getting lynched (Despite what Yuma may think, I do think there was only a .1% chance of that lynch ever happening)

I agree that it was never happening. But doesn't the fact that it was obvious that Ash wouldn't be lynched take away the disincentive for scum to hop on his wagon?

Not really. For example, suppose ash died night 1 and flipped town. 
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 20, 2013, 10:40:27 pm
His case on me was also really bad.  And I know it's a case on a town member, so I find that a little suspicious.  Plus it's just so wrong... Town members need to worry about who they're throwing the suspicion onto, because in some ways if a town member under fire throws suspicion off himself and another town member gets lynched, that's even worse than the original town member just getting lynched!  But if mafia (or SK), throw suspicion off, they're not particularly worried where it goes... anywhere but here!
I'm confused by this.  Are you saying it's invalid to think the way you just stated, or that I stated the opposite?  Because what you said here is what I said yesterday.  I said that if sudgy was scum he was more likely to be scrambling for an anyone-but-me lynch, while as town he would be more careful about where he cast his suspicions.  Which is what you found him scummy for (not finding a "better" lynch).  Now, it happens that sudgy-as-SK didn't commit that scum-tell, but I don't see why I was wrong about it...especially given your restatement of my statement yesterday.

Also, regarding amount of text about sudgy-wagon.  It's because it was the only thing happening, most of the day (except the ashersky situation).  I still find it odd that it's essentially the only thing that happened all of day-1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 20, 2013, 10:40:58 pm
I guess. But saying "The people who hopped on the Ashersky wagon are really towny" and "Scum wouldn't hop on the Ashersky wagon, because it would be really scummy" don't mesh together. I don't get why those two arguments can be used simultaneously.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 20, 2013, 10:49:35 pm
I guess. But saying "The people who hopped on the Ashersky wagon are really towny" and "Scum wouldn't hop on the Ashersky wagon, because it would be really scummy" don't mesh together. I don't get why those two arguments can be used simultaneously.
I think what he means by that is this: "To scum, jumping on would seem very scummy, so they wouldn't do it. So, those who actually jumped on probably aren't scum."
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 10:49:43 pm

I also disagree with him on a couple of his points regarding sudgy:

I disagree on the panicking thing.  I think town often gets bogged down in defending themselves, while scum is often on the lookout for an alternate lynch.  Any lynch which isn't a scum-mate is good for scum, while town doesn't particularly want to deflect onto another townie.  If there were another wagon out there, I would expect sudgy to be on it, because they have a higher chance of being scum.  But no one's really found a compelling case outside of sudgy (by which I mean one that's caught on) to call sudgy scum for his inability to do so seems wrong.  It's not like he hasn't been voting or giving reads, he's just not finding a compelling case.


This is what I was referring to, Theorel.  You're saying that town is more likely to focus on themselves, while scum is trying to find another player who's more scummy than them.  I just disagree, and my experiences as town under the gun have been aligned entirely with the second experience.

As scum, you want to convince other people that you're not scum.  That's it.  Anywhere else is good, (well, not your teammate, but you probably will take your chances that the lynch doesn't land on your teammate.)

As town, you want to convince other people that you're not scum, yeah.  But you also need to find the correct alternate lynch.  This is because if the lynch moves off you, and onto another town member, that's worse than you just being mislynched.  A town member is dead in both cases, but in the alternate-town lynch, you, a townperson who many people suspect, are still left alive!

Sudgy focused too much on the getting the wagon off him part and not enough on the finding scum part.  Which is what we would expect, since he was the Serial Killer.

If you disagree with me that scum are more likely to focus on themselves rather than alternate lynches, that's fine, but my experience really indicates otherwise.  Both with my own behavior and with Sudgy's behavior from LOTR2.  That's why I moved over when I did.  I kind of do think that Sudgy was a little bit right in that we would have been suspicious of him even if he were town.. but his reactions are ultimately what sold me on him being scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 20, 2013, 10:51:27 pm
I guess. But saying "The people who hopped on the Ashersky wagon are really towny" and "Scum wouldn't hop on the Ashersky wagon, because it would be really scummy" don't mesh together. I don't get why those two arguments can be used simultaneously.
I think what he means by that is this: "To scum, jumping on would seem very scummy, so they wouldn't do it. So, those who actually jumped on probably aren't scum."

Yeah pretty much.  It's sort of the "obviously scummy" thing that scum would want to avoid.

Of course, maybe scum knew that I (and other town members) would think so, and were outguessing me.  It's certainly a possibility.  You never know with these things.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 21, 2013, 05:29:19 am
Okay, I thought of something. If we're allowed to PM, (I didn't think so,but yuma seems to have done so) everyone should PM Galzria with their claim. Whichever role only one person claims to have must be legitimate, and since we're guaranteed to have at least 2 people who are for sure town, scum won't be able to tell which is which if Galz only tells us who is for sure town and not their roles. I think this could narrow our pool signifacantly.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 21, 2013, 06:03:15 am
If we're allowed to PM, (I didn't think so,but yuma seems to have done so) everyone should PM Galzria with their claim.

2. Personal communication outside of the forum postings is NOT ALLOWED unless your Role PM specifically allows it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 21, 2013, 06:04:55 am
PMs to the mods (mcmc and myself) are OK.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 21, 2013, 07:21:05 am
Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 21, 2013, 07:57:22 am

If you disagree with me that scum are more likely to focus on themselves rather than alternate lynches, that's fine, but my experience really indicates otherwise.  Both with my own behavior and with Sudgy's behavior from LOTR2.  That's why I moved over when I did.  I kind of do think that Sudgy was a little bit right in that we would have been suspicious of him even if he were town.. but his reactions are ultimately what sold me on him being scum.
Ah, I think I see the discrepancy.

We both agree that an "anybody-but-me" behavior is scummy.  We disagree as to what qualifies as that behavior.  IMO defending oneself is not an example of that behavior.  While it technically qualifies, because you're not paying any mind to where the votes end up, it's not what I look for as the scum-tell.  The scum-tell to me shows up in the accused casting suspicion around at various places seeing what sticks.  Wagon-jumping onto whoever has votes and distorting weak cases.  i.e. they're actually trying to lynch anyone but themselves.

So, IMO, an anybody-but-me sudgy would have actually had some scum-reads and no town-reads.  He would have tried to lynch someone else, but taken no one off the table.  That's how "anybody-but-me" works.  It results in finding anybody scummy.  It tries to look like scum-hunting while actually just pushing any alternate lynch.

I don't think defending oneself falls into that category.  You could argue that a player defending themselves isn't scum-hunting...but that's the argument there (i.e. not scumhunting).  Town players often get caught up in their own defense because they have no other information than their own towniness.  They don't want to push another wagon on a townie, so they're looking for legitimately scummy behavior.

As for examples: MXIX: Cuzz was defensive, didn't offer good alternative lynches...town.
MIV: joth was defensive, almost lynched for it, and town.  (He was lynched or vig-shot later...to town's loss)

On the other side: MXXX: mail-mi is pushed for lurking and says Robz is a better "lurker-lynch".

I'm sure there are other examples, it's been a while.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 21, 2013, 08:25:36 am
Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.

In this situation, a mass claim also hurts our doctor.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 21, 2013, 08:27:26 am
Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.

In this situation, a mass claim also hurts our doctor.
If we want to massclaim, I think we want the doctor to fake claim VT.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 21, 2013, 08:55:20 am
Oh, okay. A regular mass-claim would make sense as well, but trades knowledge of who each role is for the mafia with narrowing the lynch pool severely. I still think it's a good idea.

In this situation, a mass claim also hurts our doctor.
If we want to massclaim, I think we want the doctor to fake claim VT.

Which means we shouldn't mass claim.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 21, 2013, 09:01:32 am
If the vigs claim, we're able to trust them, because if a scum lies and says that, they'll get shot. Isn't that right? If both vigs claim, the doctor can protect the normal vig, who can then shoot into the crowd along with the one-shot. If we're lucky, they'll both hit scum. Then the doctor can claim the next day, protect the vig one last time while getting killed, and we lynch someone else and the vig shoots in the night and next night. That's a total of 8 non-mafia kills and 2 mafia ones, which if we don't have horrible luck, should get us a win. If they kill mafia the first night, we can relax and have the doctor not claim. I think it'll work out.

Also: Vote: Theorei He hasn't responded (as far as I can tell) to the criticisms of overhunting on the sudgy thing.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 09:36:39 am
If the vigs claim, we're able to trust them, because if a scum lies and says that, they'll get shot. Isn't that right? If both vigs claim, the doctor can protect the normal vig, who can then shoot into the crowd along with the one-shot. If we're lucky, they'll both hit scum. Then the doctor can claim the next day, protect the vig one last time while getting killed, and we lynch someone else and the vig shoots in the night and next night. That's a total of 8 non-mafia kills and 2 mafia ones, which if we don't have horrible luck, should get us a win. If they kill mafia the first night, we can relax and have the doctor not claim. I think it'll work out.

Also: Vote: Theorei He hasn't responded (as far as I can tell) to the criticisms of overhunting on the sudgy thing.

I think you are forgetting about mafia's roleblocker.


TTT = 2 Goons + Roleblocker, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
T = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)

Every setup with 3 or less Ts and a SK has a scum roleblocker. We know that there were four or less Ts because we know the setup must be at least MDDVxxx.

If the vig(s) claims mafia just has to roleblock them... Or roleblock the doctor who might try to protect them and kill them during the night. Either way, claiming makes it easier for mafia to know what to do during the night.

Today's main effort should be trying to hit mafia (duh!) and if we are really lucky ala Harry Potter, we will be able to take down the Mafia Roleblocker, but that is kinda a long shot.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 09:38:43 am
theorel is at L-2 just so everyone knows.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 21, 2013, 10:05:15 am

Also: Vote: Theorei He hasn't responded (as far as I can tell) to the criticisms of overhunting on the sudgy thing.
It's an "L" not an "I"

I don't think I overhunted on the sudgy thing...because I don't think I really hunted on the sudgy thing.  By which I mean that I didn't say, "if sudgy flips town, then X is suspicious".  I looked for oddities in behavior, bad arguments, and since so much behavior revolved around sudgy, much analysis did too.

In thinking through previous games for "defensive" town, I remembered MXII.  Slef-meta argument: I don't know how many people were in that game (Eevee maybe the only one still alive?)  But in that game pps discussion dominated day1.  I argued for why he was scummy while analyzing the wagon on him.  Scum-hunting means looking at everybody, and analyzing their interactions with what's happening.  Not locking onto one player as "likely scum" and pushing their lynch to the conclusion.

IMO town got lucky day1 this game with crappy scum-hunting that just happened to lock onto scum.  Not because sudgy wasn't suspicious at all (he was), but because no one else was given a reasonable look (outside arguably ashersky).  I still don't think sudgy was suspicious enough to be the "default lynch" that he essentially was.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 21, 2013, 10:07:39 am


IMO town got lucky day1 this game with crappy scum-hunting that just happened to lock onto scum.  Not because sudgy wasn't suspicious at all (he was), but because no one else was given a reasonable look (outside arguably ashersky).  I still don't think sudgy was suspicious enough to be the "default lynch" that he essentially was.
I disagree. I think sudgy was a pretty good day 1 lynch. Our mistake maybe was never running anyone else up to put pressure on them, but what were we supposed to do - abandon the good target we had because he happened to be the first one to be wagoned?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 10:08:38 am
IMO town got lucky day1 this game with crappy scum-hunting that just happened to lock onto scum.  Not because sudgy wasn't suspicious at all (he was), but because no one else was given a reasonable look (outside arguably ashersky).  I still don't think sudgy was suspicious enough to be the "default lynch" that he essentially was.
I disagree. I think sudgy was a pretty good day 1 lynch. Our mistake maybe was never running anyone else up to put pressure on them, but what were we supposed to do - abandon the good target we had because he happened to be the first one to be wagoned?

exactly.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 21, 2013, 10:15:04 am


IMO town got lucky day1 this game with crappy scum-hunting that just happened to lock onto scum.  Not because sudgy wasn't suspicious at all (he was), but because no one else was given a reasonable look (outside arguably ashersky).  I still don't think sudgy was suspicious enough to be the "default lynch" that he essentially was.
I disagree. I think sudgy was a pretty good day 1 lynch. Our mistake maybe was never running anyone else up to put pressure on them, but what were we supposed to do - abandon the good target we had because he happened to be the first one to be wagoned?
I disagree that he was a "good target".  That was my point.  We got lucky, because he wasn't a good target...he just happened to flip scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 10:17:19 am


IMO town got lucky day1 this game with crappy scum-hunting that just happened to lock onto scum.  Not because sudgy wasn't suspicious at all (he was), but because no one else was given a reasonable look (outside arguably ashersky).  I still don't think sudgy was suspicious enough to be the "default lynch" that he essentially was.
I disagree. I think sudgy was a pretty good day 1 lynch. Our mistake maybe was never running anyone else up to put pressure on them, but what were we supposed to do - abandon the good target we had because he happened to be the first one to be wagoned?
I disagree that he was a "good target".  That was my point.  We got lucky, because he wasn't a good target...he just happened to flip scum.

Bull (clap, clap, clap) Crap (clap, clap, clap)

He was a good target, yes we are lucky that he flipped scum. But we are always lucky when someone flips scum day1, but that doesn't mean they weren't good targets. He was an excellent day1 lynch.

You are just mad because you no longer have the towncred you wanted to lay up in store by being against a townie's lynch.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 21, 2013, 10:20:54 am
I've only ever seen 1 or 2 good day1 lynches...but even so, most of them are better than this one.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 10:23:11 am
I've only ever seen 1 or 2 good day1 lynches...but even so, most of them are better than this one.

Well aren't we mister picky?

So for you to have a good day1 lynch? What are the requirements? Apparently hitting scum isn't one of them...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 10:32:32 am
theorel what I really find you suspicious for isn't looking at the sudgy wagon for scum.

That is a fine and good thing to do day2. What I find you scummy for was this sequence of events.

- What there is a wagon on sudgy, I'll go take a look.
- OK, I see the points, but I am going to vote elsewhere
- There is still a wagon on sudgy, I'll go take a look.
- OK, I see the points, but I am going to vote elsewhere
- There is STILL a wagon on sudgy, I'll go take a look.
- Hmmm, the points aren't really that good, he is town.
- OK, he is town. nkirbit is scummy for jumping on his wagon the way he did.


Over time you moved from straddling the wagon, not against it but certainly not for it, to being against the wagon and finding someone scummy on it w/o "knowing" the alignment of the player the wagon had formed on. This is scummy to me. Because it appears that overtime you expressed a growing town read on someone who it appears you knew to not be mafia aligned, hence arguing against a town lynch for town credit while simultaneously finding someone scummy for pushing said non-mafia aligned player. It turns out the player ended up being a SK, lucky for town. Unlucky for you and know you are left with the unenviable task of convincing us this wagon and lynch was bad despite it hitting the SK, who was obviously being scummy, but you couldn't see that because you thought he was town because you knew you weren't partners with him.

Hence my vote.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 21, 2013, 10:49:04 am
I think a good lynch at any time is based on actual actions taken by the players concerned.  Where "actions" is being defined as meaningful arguments and votes which have potential to end in a lynch.  If something won't end in a lynch then the arguments are non-committal, you're sifting through what players have "said" they think without knowing what they actually think.

For example, scum players can "say" their partner is scummy without actually worrying about lynching them.  Or they can "say" a town-player is townie without worrying about derailing their lynch.  These are weak arguments, and lead to weak lynches.

This is why day-1 lynches are inherently weaker than later-day lynches.  Because they're largely based on what people say.  But occasionally, you can draw "action"s out of players even day-1 by having sufficient pressure to actually look like a lynch.  Of course, this only works if sometimes you actually lynch those people...but well, sometimes you have a derp-hammer.

Looking back through games where I was town (I'll ignore scum games, because it's harder to judge what I really think of them):
MIV was a good day1 lynch.
MVIII no day-1 lynch
MXII was a bad lynch (as mentioned, basically the same situation as this)
MXVII was a good lynch, even though I opposed it.
MXIX was hmm...I dunno.  I opposed the lynch, I thought it was bad at the time.  I think it was better than this one, even if the arguments were bad.
MXXX was a mediocre lynch.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 10:56:35 am
What's your point, theorel? I'm totally ok putting you up to L-1, but I want to re-read this day because if you flip town we will have (again) spent an entire day on one person (something that I think was fine D1! Despite what sudgy and theorel say, D1 was mcawesomesauce).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 21, 2013, 11:20:25 am
I was asked what qualifies a good lynch.  I specified what qualifies a good lynch.  I don't think sudgy qualified as that.  That was my point.

My argument was that day-1 lynches are often bad, I often oppose them, this wasn't a bid for town-cred, it's how I play the game.  Both games where I supported the day-1 lynch it was after pushing against another day-1 lynch.  Recently MXXX where the lynch I pushed against was on scum (I just happened to land on scum anyways).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 21, 2013, 11:37:39 am
I agree with Voltaire, what's the point? I disagree that sudgy was a bad lynch, he was scummy, we lynched him, and hey he's scum. What could be better than that?

Where do you think we should look today?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 11:53:26 am
Ok, caught back up, game refreshed in my mind.

First, LAME to yuma for his pick-a-fight-with-Galz ploy. Ploys are dumb. Why? Because you can't guarantee they won't catch gullible town. A category into which I will happily place myself. (hi scum! you can convince me you're right pretty easily, I'm totally serious!)

Second, I agree with the thinking that the ash wagon was entirely town. Why? Because I know the alignment of everyone on it but Xerxes, and I have a big townread on him. Especially after his massclaim suggestion. I think the only way he does that as scum is if a vet told him "new players might try this so do it". At the very least, I don't want to lynch him today (or soon).

Third, my personal lynch pool is then

Eevee
Yuma
TwistedArcher
Theorel
Mail-mi
Chairs
Nkirbit

and there (almost) has to be three scum in there. And town has a doctor, and a vig, and another PR out there. Also the IC is still alive and well. Feelin' pretty darn good about our situation right now.

Have we had a vote count recently? Who are the theorel voters?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 21, 2013, 12:00:20 pm
Yuma, nkirbit, me, xerxes
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:02:35 pm
D1 final vote

chairs (2): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (7): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, Nkirbit, Eevee, Voltaire, Robz888
ashersky (1): XerxesPraelor
Voltaire (1): ashersky
Eevee (1): mail-mi

Not voting (1): Galzria

I am virtually certain scum is on the sudgy wagon (because even if theorel is scum, the only possible way they're not is mail-mi + xerxes, and I find xerxes town).

So other than theorel, I am most interested in lynching Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, Nkirbit, Eevee. Add in theorel and the person falling off my "lynch list" from my previous post is mail-mi. I'm ok dealing with mail-mi on a later day if needed.

Also, I did a quick vote count.

Vote Count 2.Voltaire

theorel (4): yuma, nkirbit, TA, Xerxes

Not Voting (10): Eevee, Voltaire, Theorel, Mail-mi, Chairs, Galzria
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:04:14 pm
I'll agree with the lame assessment.

There has to be three scum. we know this now.

setup is MDDV at least, so at most 3 Ts

The only setups with only 2 mafia are:

TTTTTTT = Goon + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
TTTTTT = Goon + Godfather
TTTTT = Goon + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)

all of which have more than 3Ts

The setup for mafia has to be:

TTT = 2 Goons + Roleblocker, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)

or

T = Goon + Roleblocker + Godfather, Serial Killer (Investigation Immune OR 1-Shot Bulletproof)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:05:37 pm
Right, yuma. My (almost) has to be comment was referring to the fact that I could be wrong and Xerxes could be scum.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:07:37 pm
If theorel is indeed scum, what do his partners do?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:07:47 pm
I have read townish on xerxes, but his thinking that we should get the vig to claim read me a little scummy, especially after it had been specifically stated by the IC that they shouldn't claim. Vig is the biggedt threat to mafia at this point and I coulf=d see new mafia think if only we could get them to claim, we could kill/roleblock them and tried to out them that way...

not a super solid read, but did raise a flag for me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:08:58 pm
I have read townish on xerxes, but his thinking that we should get the vig to claim read me a little scummy, especially after it had been specifically stated by the IC that they shouldn't claim. Vig is the biggedt threat to mafia at this point and I coulf=d see new mafia think if only we could get them to claim, we could kill/roleblock them and tried to out them that way...

not a super solid read, but did raise a flag for me.

But he would have had an entire night to talk with his scummates...I just don't see it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:09:44 pm
Right, yuma. My (almost) has to be comment was referring to the fact that I could be wrong and Xerxes could be scum.

well i see we disagree a bit about xerxes... the problem with your assumption is that mafia wouldn't know there was a vig during night chat.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:14:46 pm
I have read townish on xerxes, but his thinking that we should get the vig to claim read me a little scummy, especially after it had been specifically stated by the IC that they shouldn't claim. Vig is the biggedt threat to mafia at this point and I coulf=d see new mafia think if only we could get them to claim, we could kill/roleblock them and tried to out them that way...

not a super solid read, but did raise a flag for me.

But he would have had an entire night to talk with his scummates...I just don't see it.

you don't have to see it for it to be possible.

theorel is the biggest suspect for me, but I don't think something that can be read ambivilently should completely discount xerxes from the discussion.

as for what theo's partners do if he is scum... Buss early... ala TA's vote I think. Hope the wagon dissipates but if not at least you are on it. after the wagon reaches 4 votes that stay away, panic... hope the wagon goes away, hammer buss if it gets to that point where he is ver likely to get lynched...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:17:52 pm
Right, yuma. My (almost) has to be comment was referring to the fact that I could be wrong and Xerxes could be scum.

well i see we disagree a bit about xerxes... the problem with your assumption is that mafia wouldn't know there was a vig during night chat.

Ah, point taken.

D2 Post Count!
29 yuma
11 Galz
11 nkirbit
9 TA
8 theorel
7 Eevee
6 Voltaire
4 mail-mi
3 xerxes
2 chairs
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 21, 2013, 12:19:28 pm
Why are you singling me out over nkirbit when we had the same reaction?

I too would expect scum to bus if theorel is mafia. Xerxes and nkirbit are both very possibly partners should theo turn up mafia.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:22:24 pm
Why are you singling me out over nkirbit when we had the same reaction?

I too would expect scum to bus if theorel is mafia. Xerxes and nkirbit are both very possibly partners should theo turn up mafia.

I have a stronger scum read on you from day1 than nkirbit. also nkirbit has knowledge about his own alingment (part of the case against theo is his case on nnkirbit day 1) whereas you don't know nkirbit's alignment.

could nkirbit be bussing? sure, but i think yours fits the bill better. doesn't mean that you are either... just that if only one of you is, I would say it is you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 21, 2013, 12:23:57 pm
If theorel is indeed scum, what do his partners do?

Are you trying to find out so that you can do the opposite? ;)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 21, 2013, 12:26:22 pm
If theorel is indeed scum, what do his partners do?

We should worry about that tomorrow if we lynch thereol and he turns out to be scum. Not earlier.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:27:34 pm
If theorel is indeed scum, what do his partners do?

We should worry about that tomorrow if we lynch thereol and he turns out to be scum. Not earlier.

this is the best answer and the one i should have given.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:29:15 pm
If theorel is indeed scum, what do his partners do?

Are you trying to find out so that you can do the opposite? ;)

Aw shucks. So much for that.  :(

Just trying to get more people on the record about this. I did my "post count" post to point out how little we've gotten this day. I don't think some people have even posted since yuma's case on theorel (I could be wrong).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:30:13 pm
If theorel is indeed scum, what do his partners do?

We should worry about that tomorrow if we lynch thereol and he turns out to be scum. Not earlier.

Bolded the reason I think the question is worth asking. I wanted replies if for some reason we don't lynch him. Talk = pro-town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 21, 2013, 12:32:04 pm
If theorel is indeed scum, what do his partners do?

We should worry about that tomorrow if we lynch thereol and he turns out to be scum. Not earlier.

Bolded the reason I think the question is worth asking. I wanted replies if for some reason we don't lynch him. Talk = pro-town.

Well, if we don't lynch him we're deciding as a group that he's not scum, so hunting for his scumbuddies would be counterproductive.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:34:53 pm
Re-read mail-mi. He mega-hedges on sudgy.

I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

Y u no want TA lynch? I want to reread this thread when I have access to a computer. Ash seems a lot more scummy from that L-1 vote on sudgy, BUT, he is a claimed PR that we can rat out later if he is scum.

This is a position town could take. This is also a position scum could take.

yuma, compare/contrast theorel/mail-mi?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:35:58 pm
Well, if we don't lynch him we're deciding as a group that he's not scum, so hunting for his scumbuddies would be counterproductive.

Many theoretical situations where this isn't true. At least one real one, like when we decided mail-mi was scum in HP and then lynched chairs.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:40:56 pm
Have we agreed we want the Vig to claim today, whether 1-shot or full? The last instruction I found was from Galz saying this should happen at the end of the day. I super-agree, but want to make sure I didn't miss something.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:42:20 pm
Re-read mail-mi. He mega-hedges on sudgy.

I am totally okay with a sudgy lynch, but I don't prefer it. The ATE is a bit scummy, but I'mgetting more townie vibes from him than scummy.

Y u no want TA lynch? I want to reread this thread when I have access to a computer. Ash seems a lot more scummy from that L-1 vote on sudgy, BUT, he is a claimed PR that we can rat out later if he is scum.

This is a position town could take. This is also a position scum could take.

yuma, compare/contrast theorel/mail-mi?

I agree, but I think that is pretty standard mail-mi. I think the difference is how theorel overly focused on sudgy over and over and over again to make sure we all knew where we stood, whereas it appears that mail-mi actually said he would go for a sudgy lynch (at one point he said TA or sudgy, with a preference for TA). I can't blame him for wanting his stronger scum read to get lynched instead of sudgy.

The other difference is that theorel turned sudgy's wagon into a case on nkirbit. mail-mi didn't do that.

So yeah, mail-mi is up there, but nowhere close to theorel in my estimation.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 12:44:15 pm
Have we agreed we want the Vig to claim today, whether 1-shot or full? The last instruction I found was from Galz saying this should happen at the end of the day. I super-agree, but want to make sure I didn't miss something.

I don't agree. Mafia has a roleblocker. For certain they have a roleblocker given what we know of the setup. A claiming vig will be neutralized if he claims and we don't lynch the roleblocker thus what is the point of him claiming? The vig should claim if they come up for the lynch, but other than that... no. I don't think the vig should claim.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:49:11 pm
Have we agreed we want the Vig to claim today, whether 1-shot or full? The last instruction I found was from Galz saying this should happen at the end of the day. I super-agree, but want to make sure I didn't miss something.

I don't agree. Mafia has a roleblocker. For certain they have a roleblocker given what we know of the setup. A claiming vig will be neutralized if he claims and we don't lynch the roleblocker thus what is the point of him claiming? The vig should claim if they come up for the lynch, but other than that... no. I don't think the vig should claim.

Well, three people (including you) have claimed not-Vig. Because you three (yuma, chairs, mail-mi) claimed if they were the Vig they would not shoot last night. If mafia wants to shoot for the vig, they've got pretty good odds (since there are three of them, and they know they're not the vig). Of course, some of the three of you could be scum, lowering those odds. What I am thinking is that the Vig has kind of a high chance of dying tonight because of those D1 actions. If they claim, the Doctor can protect them. Yes, they're role-blocked (maybe?) but we have another PR out there too. And it forces mafia to shoot blind for the doctor.

OK, maybe it's not as good as I thought. But unfortunately, unless town has lied, we have a smaller pool than we should have for the Vig.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 21, 2013, 12:53:04 pm
Here's another reason the Vig should not claim:

During the day and yesterday, the Vig will be giving away information about their reads.  This is also information about who the Vig is likely to shoot or not shoot, since the Vig wants to aim for scum.

If the vig claims, scum can probably make an at least decent guess at who the Vigilante is going to shoot.  If it's scum, the vig can be roleblocked, and if it's not, they can be left alive to shoot a town player.  Obviously scum can't be sure, but they could make a better than random guess at whether it's okay to let the vig shoot or not.  Which is bad.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 12:58:04 pm
Also, looks like I'm wrong. Everyone has posted since yuma's case on theorel.

A case I feel much better about at this point. I think yuma continues to come across as neutral to me, with a clear town narrative and a muddier scum one, due to his answers to my questions/his recent play. So I'm comfortable with the origins of this case, which makes me more comfortable with the sheeping votes (TA, nkirbit) as being more likely to come from town.

Intent to put theorel to L-1, I guess? Or probably ok to put him there, then I guess we just wait for Galz to clarify if he wants Vig to claim, or if he wants them to use their best judgement. I assume there's someone out there willing to hammer (my only hesitation here is the quickness of the day).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 21, 2013, 01:56:42 pm
Okay, okay, I'm completely wrong about claiming. I still think it would have worked if PM'ing were allowed.
In other news, the people I think are most likely to be scum are Mail-mi, Theorei, and Chairs, even though I'm not sure about really any of them. Let's just go with the theorei lynch today and see how that works.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 01:59:21 pm
Okay, okay, I'm completely wrong about claiming. I still think it would have worked if PM'ing were allowed.
the people I think are most likely to be scum are Mail-mi, Theorei, and Chairs

Can you elaborate on what you find scummy about mail-mi and chairs?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 21, 2013, 02:31:14 pm
Have we agreed we want the Vig to claim today, whether 1-shot or full? The last instruction I found was from Galz saying this should happen at the end of the day. I super-agree, but want to make sure I didn't miss something.

We'll cross that bridge a bit later. If Scum are 3T, then they already know that the Vig is 1-shot (MDDVTTT the only setup possible now if scum has 3T).

If the Vig is 1-shot however, he does NOT know if scum have 3T or 1T: MDDVT-xx is what he knows, where "xx" could be "TT" or almost any other combination of letters.

If there is another PR out there that is not our Doctor or our Vig, they know for a fact that scum is 1T (As they know the setup is MDDVT-"Y"-x, where "Y" is them).

Now, we've lynched 1, and 2 died last night. So we have 10 alive. We know that there are 3 scum, and I'm an IC. That means scum know that our Vig and our Doctor exist within a pool of 6 players. There are at MOST 4 VT's.

IF our Vigilante is a full Vig, we have at least one other PR out there (MDDVVT-x).

I'm debating having that PR, if he exists, claim at this time. The trouble is, there may be upwards of 2 PR's out there (MDDV-xx-T is possible).

Here's my biggest concern right now:

If the setup is MDDVTTT, our Vigilante is only 1-shot. Scum could conceivably claim additional PR's to make us believe that the setup is MDDVT-xx, and we wouldn't catch them unless the Godfather died (the only distinguishing feature between 3T's and 1T). Essentially, we have no way to trust any claims beyond our Doctor and our Vigilante if he's 1-shot (if he's full this is different since we KNOW that there's only 1T).

And here's the danger with a 1-shot Vig claiming: He becomes an IC, which is great. However...:

Quote from: Galzria
Now, we've lynched 1, and 2 died last night. So we have 10 alive. We know that there are 3 scum, and I'm an IC. That means scum know that our Vig and our Doctor exist within a pool of 6 players. There are at MOST 4 VT's.
(Ha, self quoting from within my own post!)

If the 1-shot Vig claims, scum now know that our Doctor is one of 5 players. Further, if they ARE a 1T scum team, they know that there are at LEAST 2 PR's in that set of 5, and potentially even 3.

However, with ALL that said, I'm seriously contemplating a full claim at this point. Well, maybe I'll have our Doctor claim VT. Not sure yet. Debating. Debating.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 21, 2013, 02:47:58 pm
So here's the thing:

Let's assume the setup is MDDVTTT (maximum room for scum to play around in regarding fake-claims):

There are 10 alive right now.

I'm and IC.
Our 1-shot Vig, once claimed is an IC.

This leaves:

2 Town vs 8 suspects

Now let's assume scum decide to fake claim (because this is what I'm trying to determine is viable or not). In doing so, they're telling town the setup is MDDVT-xx

Single player claims they could make: CC (Full Cop), DD (Full Extra Doctor), VV (Full Extra Vig).

BB doesn't work, because it ties two players into the claim. MM doesn't work for the same reason. VV DOES work because in order to claim it they have to come public, at which point they can argue that the scum Roleblocker is simply blocking them each night (hence why there's only 1 kill).

Under this premise, one scum has taken themselves into the "safe" zone of being a claimed PR. At this point I would ask our Doctor to step forward.

This makes 4 claimed PR's (assumed IC's) vs 6 in the pool of possible scum (of which 2 actually are, and 4 are VT):

If we lynch one suspect, scum will "roleblock" the scum that's claimed PR, and kill the Doctor.

3 PR's vs 5 suspects. With 3 scum alive, this is mylo. 8 Players, 3 scum. Mislynch and we're down to 6 Players, 3 Scum. We'll have no Night Kill, and Scum can force a no-lynch.

As such, I'm seeing that we absolutely should NOT mass-claim.

IF you are a PR that is NOT the Doctor or Vigilante, you need to stay quiet and stay hidden. The -only- exception to this is if you're a Cop that has a scum result. A town result, even if you're a 1-shot cop, is NOT worth claiming, because it's something that is equally as viable for scum to claim if you DON'T exist - and thus we have no way to trust you.

Our Doctor absolutely must stay hushed up for now, even if scum does have a 1/5 chance of finding you (if our Vig claims. 1/6 if he doesn't). And for our Vigilante, if you're 1-shot, you can claim whenever (or not at all, I'll leave that up to you. Not claiming protects our Doctor a little more, claiming makes you an IC). If you're a FULL Vigilante, well, I still have to consider that. Your claiming means we have another PR out there that could claim that we CAN trust... I'm not yet sure if that's valuable enough to sacrifice your NK to a Roleblock.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 21, 2013, 02:53:46 pm
Regarding the theorel wagon, I'm feeling the same to it as I did to sudgy's wagon. I don't know if that's a good thing, well sudgy was scum, I'll reread him when I can.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 21, 2013, 03:37:50 pm
Vote Count 2.1:

Theorel (4): Yuma, nkirbit, Twistedarcher, XerxesPraelor

Not Voting (6): Eevee, Voltaire, Theorel, Mail-mi, Chairs, Galzria

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

Day 2 ends on October, 30 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 05:33:24 pm
so Galz: tdlr... PRs don't claim until you till them to, except for 1-shot Vig who should claim if they feel they should? In the meantime let's scum hunt and not get bogged down in theory talk.

This correct up to this point?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 21, 2013, 05:43:55 pm
so Galz: tdlr... PRs don't claim until you till them to, except for 1-shot Vig who should claim if they feel they should? In the meantime let's scum hunt and not get bogged down in theory talk.

This correct up to this point?

I try harder to scum hunt less as an IC, so that I don't get followed blindly. I would much rather see everybody else scum hunting. I think it's healthier for the town. I'm happy to give my opinions (sometimes) when asked, but it's harder for scum to appease me and forces them to play their own game if they can't just sheep me. It also forces everybody else in the town (who have more information than I do) to think for themselves.

I'm much more interested in keeping things straight and trying to make sure town uses every advantage they can while minimizing any advantage scum can gain by playing an uninformed town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 21, 2013, 05:45:58 pm
vote: theorel

Seems like an ok thing to do, then. That's L-1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 05:46:38 pm
so Galz: tdlr... PRs don't claim until you till them to, except for 1-shot Vig who should claim if they feel they should? In the meantime let's scum hunt and not get bogged down in theory talk.

This correct up to this point?

I try harder to scum hunt less as an IC, so that I don't get followed blindly. I would much rather see everybody else scum hunting. I think it's healthier for the town. I'm happy to give my opinions (sometimes) when asked, but it's harder for scum to appease me and forces them to play their own game if they can't just sheep me. It also forces everybody else in the town (who have more information than I do) to think for themselves.

I'm much more interested in keeping things straight and trying to make sure town uses every advantage they can while minimizing any advantage scum can gain by playing an uninformed town.

I think you are doing fine yourself. I just know that those sort of theory posts and the subsequent discussion can create crickets or create a how mess of discussion about theory all distracting from scum hunting.

So I am not saying to you to scum hunt. I am sure you are in your own way. But rather that everyone else shouldn't stop talking because the IC talked some necessary theory.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 21, 2013, 05:52:15 pm
I'm debating dropping a Hammer.

I need to see who's voted here, and where those votes were D1. It's unlikely, I think, that he's town with a full town quick wagon, however this is our last lynch before mylo if we're wrong. So.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 06:01:27 pm
I'm debating dropping a Hammer.

I need to see who's voted here, and where those votes were D1. It's unlikely, I think, that he's town with a full town quick wagon, however this is our last lynch before mylo if we're wrong. So.


did a search "vote:" in order of who they voted for. Not as fancy as some of voltgloss's vote thingies, but typing with a babe in arms is tough, so this is what you get.
yuma
voted for TA, sudgy, robz, sudgy, sudgy, Robz, sudgy,


nkirbit
voted for ashersky, Robz, Voltaire, sudgy, voltaire, xerxes, sudgy,


ta
voted for voltaire, sudgy


xerxes
voted for no lynch, voltaire, twisted, sudgy, ashersky


voltaire
voted for xerxes, chairs, chairs, ashersky, sudgy, ashersky, sudgy
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 21, 2013, 11:05:17 pm
Ok... tomorrow I start my on-week, meaning significantly less posting until next Tuesday. So this is probably my last larger post for a while... basically doing a reread of everyone (except sudgy, but including the sudgy wagon obviously) and trying to figure out where they are at...

1. Eevee  - lurker! 24 posts; was on the sudgy wagon early. I think he was the 4th vote initially. I still don't get the xerxes lynch yesterday. I mentioned that I felt it was odd last reread and still do, but not sure what it means scummywise... Probably a bit scummy since it stands out. Ok, he did explain it after all, I guess I missed it before... due to xerxes bad read on sudgy/ash and him voting TA for not posting. Then a huge break... like ~350 posts in between his posts. If I remember correctly ash brought up an interesting case on eevee toward the end of day. That might be worth looking at again. The basic premise that town!eevee finds people townie and works from there. scum!eevee finds people scummy and works from there? And he was ultimately on the sudgy wagon, although partially self preservation at this point? Yes only mail-mi was voting for him, but there was some pressue... And nothing worth noting day2 except for the absence of stuff to note...

2. Robz888 - quick summary of his reads to take note of at the end: "xerxes expect serious heat tomorrow", "To the extent that I know scum!Eevee at all, I do agree with you here, ash" on ash's notes about eevee; voted voltaire pretty heavily throughout the day (although I personal disagree with how he arrived there). So suspicion of Xerxes, eevee and voltaire

3. Ashersky - quick summary of his reads to take note of at the end: "I think scum!eevee scum hunts, while town!eevee town hunts, if that makes sense.  Town eevee is looking for teammates to NOT lynch, while scum eevee is looking for an acceptable mislynch with backing" case on eevee as mentioned before; "Was just going to ask if anyone was interested.  That reaction to almost losing his scum partner sudgy was classic." not a valid reason anymore, but still was suspicious... "mail-mi is acti-lurking" So suspicion of mail-mi, eevee and voltaire

4. Voltaire - 102 posts: early suspicion of chairs and a xerxes town read (that has been sustained into today btw). moved to a vote on ashersky, went here a number of times throughout the day for a variety of reasons. I do find him voting ashersky to be a mixed bag. Ash was such a bad lynch and voltaire kept going back to it. Because he didn't think it was a bad lynch or because he felt it was a possible mislynch. I am inclined toward the first (or it could be that it was just how scum!voltaire thought town!voltaire would react... this I can see. Like me as mafia knowing that town!yuma would almost always policy vote a selfvote... sometimes trying to recreate your meta can be forced a little too much). Ended up on the sudgy lynch (with some distractions along the way via ash) was the L-2 vote. Received some pressure from Robz (unfair I felt) but stood pretty strong and reacted well to it. End of day his lynch pool was ash (still?!?!), chairs, sudgy with his vote on sudgy. Overreacted to ash's L-1 vote cause he thought it was a hammer.. again real reaction or how voltaire thought town!voltaire should react? And day2, came in ready and willing to L-1 theorel, has done so, maintained a town read on xerxes and hasn't really separated anyone else out yet. Did bring up the idea of mail-mi being like theorel, so scum hunting there...

6. Twistedarcher - 74 posts: was the first on sudgy and basically stayed there all day long. Only moved his vote once I think.... Lots of theory talk... maybe not as much as others, but it sure feels like he is only talking theory for a long, long time... After that strongly says ash is town, says no alarm bells from mail-mi, and not much else... Actually I think if there is scum on the sudgy wagon it is most likely TA. Really only voted for sudgy all day (he had a vote on voltaire very, very early) but after that stuck on sudgy, talked theory and didn't really say much else despite having 74 posts. This is a flag for me. I don't think I prefer him as much as theorel, but I would consider him if theorel's wagon somehow died. Day2 was on theorel as the third vote, kinda reacted funny when I said TA might be bussing to a theoretical.... It would only be incriminating if theorel were 1. lynched 2. flipped scum. If neither of those happen TA doesn't get heat, but he was acting like he was awfully close to the fire....

7. Theorel - 75 posts I think people know how I feel here. I'll reread again and post anything that isn't significantly related to sudgy and is still important... Hard to read past all the theory talk to find the nuggets... Had an intentional removal of a RVS vote that Robz finds scummy (I am still up in the air on that, but worth pointing out I suppose)... as mentioned finds nkirbit scummy for the narrative that theorel created to find someone scummy by... theory, theory, theory.... does his scumscore (after I mention that it was odd that he hadn't done one yet, btw) has higher reads on mail-mi (28), chairs (24), nkirbit (24) yuma (25) sudgy (25) and a really, really low, almost unexplained read on voltaire (18) that is lower than ash's (20)... interesting and votes for chairs... and then backs off on chairs as it has received no help from outside... Day2... not much, hasn't fully responded to the case or wagon on him, very intersted to see what he has to say when he gets back. Nothing I saw here made me change my read on him, a couple of things added to it.

8. Sudgy - not interested in

9. Mail-Mi - 31 posts; already talked a bit about him. Honestly looks like standard mail-mi to me. As TA says, no alarm bells. He did avoid the sudgy lynch, but I felt that was because he had a significantly stronger scum read in TA and one that I think was somewhat justified. So not concerned with him there... His reaction to the theorel wagon isn't my favorite, but not super incriminating.

10. Chairs - 25 posts; after theory and fluff posts arrived on the sudgy wagon; and nothing else.... Fun. This is our best lurker lynch candidate I think. I don't really have a solid read on him... But the question is: do we have a better option than a lurker lynch? I think we do.

11. Nkirbit - 53 posts; I still think his on/off/on reaction to sudgy midday was townie. Also votes Robz and Voltaire throughout the day, those votes looked fine to me. Seems genuinely interested in scum hunting I think... The xerxes vote isn't my favorite, but he is looking at people voting for ash... interesting thing here that nkirbit is voting xerxes for:

I don't want to vote Ashersky because I don't think he's scum.  I'm most suspicious of Xerxes' out of all the people voting for him.. it seems like the type of bandwagoning vote that scum would make.

Vote: Xerxes

But just recently said:

Do we think that scum would look to jump on this wagon, faking frustration (or having actual frustration) with Ash, and hoping the wagon would go through?  I'm actually torn... I think scum want to avoid "obviously bad wagons" that won't go through for town credit, so I'm going to give some towncredit to Xerxes and Voltaire for being on this wagon.  I think it's just more likely that scum avoid the Ashersky situation entirely.

So there is a change of thought. Not necessarily scummy, especially as we now have ash's alignment confirmed, but nkirbit any comments on why the change of thought in regard to this?

12. Xerxes - 15 posts: was pretty willing to band wagon to get the game going. I understand that thought concept. His first 7 posts into the game all deal with voting in someway or another (voting, unvoting, or voting incorrectly) that reads townie to me. new scum I think is much more cautious with their vote. I mentioned that I wasn't a huge fan of his mass claim suggestion start of today. Thought it might be scummy. Could be but I think I am reading town here...

13. Galzria - reread Galz yourself if you want to know the thoughts of our IC



So overall reads:

scummy: theorel, TA followed by chairs and eevee mostly for lack of readability

nullish but both on the slightly townier side I think: voltaire, mail-mi (more townie than volt, maybe volt on the slight scummy side)

town: yuma, galz, xerxes, nkirbit (nkirbit the least townie here, but a pretty big difference between nkirbit and mail-mi I think... although that change in attitude to the ash wagon is a bit troublesome.)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 21, 2013, 11:13:36 pm
If you're not on the Theorel wagon already, I want you to detail exactly why not.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 21, 2013, 11:30:16 pm
Yuma:  I just looked at the situation two different times and came to two different conclusions, I guess.

Thinking about it again, I think the reaction actually does speak much more to Voltaire's townness than it does to Xerxes'.  I think that it's sort of known that votes like the ones made by Xerxes and Voltaire will draw some suspicion (exactly the type of suspicion I threw on Xerxes when he voted), and while that's hardly damning, it puts you under the microscope, which is a position that I think scum want to avoid.  Voltaire's played a lot of games here, and would have known that, so I think I lean town on him on his reaction.  When considering it for the second time, I had that conclusion about Xerxes, but I now don't think it's as strong because he wouldn't have been familiar with that situation (necessarily.. I don't know what his background in mafia is, if he has one).  So it's possible that Xerxes really thought the Ashersky wagon was going to go through and wanted to help it along.. but I don't think Voltaire would knowingly take that risk, knowing it can draw suspicion.

So yes, I guess I did flip-flop a little bit, but perhaps the correct response is somewhere in the middle of where I ended up both times.  I'm not sure.  It's not an easy question to answer.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 21, 2013, 11:35:51 pm
I am still happy with the Theorel wagon.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 21, 2013, 11:37:22 pm
It's also insane that we're in MYLO if we mislynch.  One mislynch and you get to MYLO?  That's harsh... (I guess we had a mis-vig, as well.)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 22, 2013, 12:30:19 am
It's also insane that we're in MYLO if we mislynch.  One mislynch and you get to MYLO?  That's harsh... (I guess we had a mis-vig, as well.)

An SK on D1 is a mislynch. Not only would his shot last night have put us in the same situation today (9 alive is actually better than 10) - The truth is his shot wouldn't have likely gone through as Mafia would Roleblock him. As such the lynch was as good as lynching a VT. Yes, he wasn't town, but he also wasn't Mafia.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 22, 2013, 01:23:07 am
It's also insane that we're in MYLO if we mislynch.  One mislynch and you get to MYLO?  That's harsh... (I guess we had a mis-vig, as well.)

An SK on D1 is a mislynch. Not only would his shot last night have put us in the same situation today (9 alive is actually better than 10) - The truth is his shot wouldn't have likely gone through as Mafia would Roleblock him. As such the lynch was as good as lynching a VT. Yes, he wasn't town, but he also wasn't Mafia.

On the plus side, it gave us good data on setup.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 22, 2013, 01:23:49 am
Also I'm basically restricted to phone posting until my new apartment has internet.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 22, 2013, 01:34:42 am
It's also insane that we're in MYLO if we mislynch.  One mislynch and you get to MYLO?  That's harsh... (I guess we had a mis-vig, as well.)

An SK on D1 is a mislynch. Not only would his shot last night have put us in the same situation today (9 alive is actually better than 10) - The truth is his shot wouldn't have likely gone through as Mafia would Roleblock him. As such the lynch was as good as lynching a VT. Yes, he wasn't town, but he also wasn't Mafia.

On the plus side, it gave us good data on setup.

An SK existing? Eh, it gives scum more valuable information than it does town. It means we aren't dealing with a 0T, 2T or 4T setup, but we still don't know the actual scum setup. This told scum exactly what they're dealing with in terms of the numbers. Especially if they are a 0T-2T team.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 22, 2013, 06:05:05 am
If you're not on the Theorel wagon already, I want you to detail exactly why not.
I think is a good case, but I think it has more of a shot of coming through if everyone doesn't jump all over it. Also, it wasn't my case, I don't "deserve" to be a part of the wagon or whatever. It has had my silent support ever since yuma made the case!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 22, 2013, 07:01:59 am
Theorel is one vote away from a lynch, so if you vote, it'll be sure to "come through". Could you explain what deserve means? It's not really an honor to be part of a wagon.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: theorel on October 22, 2013, 09:26:41 am
I'm tired and a little unwell.  I'm not up for actually contributing to the game.  Feel free to lynch me whenever.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 22, 2013, 09:41:19 am
I'm tired and a little unwell.  I'm not up for actually contributing to the game.  Feel free to lynch me whenever.
I would vote you over this post if it wasn't the hammer. This is just so scummy, and I an absolutely fine with you being the lynch.

If you're not on the Theorel wagon already, I want you to detail exactly why not.
See above.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 22, 2013, 11:07:29 am
I can't remember if I'm currently on the theorel wagon or not.  If not, intent to hammer.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 22, 2013, 11:09:20 am
I can't remember if I'm currently on the theorel wagon or not.  If not, intent to hammer.

You are not.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 22, 2013, 01:21:03 pm
Vote: Theorel

Hammer.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 22, 2013, 01:49:17 pm
*whistles*
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 22, 2013, 01:53:12 pm
Theorel is one vote away from a lynch, so if you vote, it'll be sure to "come through". Could you explain what deserve means? It's not really an honor to be part of a wagon.
Yeah, but that was my reason for not being a part of it earlier. Now there is nothing left to do but to hope he is indeed scum!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 22, 2013, 01:54:39 pm
Final Vote Count:

Theorel (6): Yuma, nkirbit, Twistedarcher, XerxesPraelor, Voltaire Galzria

Not Voting (4): Eevee, Theorel, Mail-mi, Chairs

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

THREAD LOCKED
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 22, 2013, 02:00:05 pm
flavor to be added when I am back from class

Final Vote Count:

Theorel (6): Yuma, nkirbit, Twistedarcher, XerxesPraelor, Voltaire Galzria

Not Voting (4): Eevee, Theorel, Mail-mi, Chairs

With 10 alive, it took 6 to lynch.

Theorel has been lynched.  He was Dong Zhuo, Mafia Godfather.

Night 2 has begun.  All night actions are due by Thursday, October 24, at 2:00 p.m. Forum time.

All players are to PM both mods at least once during the night to confirm their continued participation in the game.

This thread is STILL LOCKED.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 24, 2013, 02:29:37 pm
I cannot believe we executed Dong Zhuo, his forces should flee now that they have no leader. Hopefully we can press onward and rescue the emperor. Everyone assemble!

Oh no, Yuma, The beloved Sun Jian is no where to be found. There must still be spies among us. As a Town Doctor he was imperative to our forces ability to take down Luoyang's Xuanyang Gate!

We have no choice but to move on directly toward Hulao Gate, let us hope there is no one waiting for us there.

What is this??? Twistedarcher, The Beautiful Diao Chan has been found dead! Diao Chan! Here! In our camp, this is truly a bad sign. She must have been sent to spy on us as she is simply a Mafia Goon and could not have defeated anyone herself.

My worst fears have become reality, our forces are ever dwindling and the only way to get the emperor back is to storm Hulao Gate directly. I am no longer confident we will be able to defeat what is waiting for us there.


Day 3 has begun

Day 3 begins on October 24 at 2:30 pm and ends on November 3 at 8:00 pm
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 24, 2013, 02:29:48 pm
Vote Count 3.0:

Not Voting (7): Eevee, Voltaire, Mail-mi, Chairs, Nkirbit, Xerses, Galzria

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Day 2 ends on November, 3 at 8:00 p.m. Forum time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:30:53 pm
Well done. Mass claim time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:31:22 pm
Yuma, I knew Mafia would figure it out, but your being doctor was 100% after D1. :P Surprised you didn't die that night. ;D Glad you didn't though too.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:32:23 pm
To reconfirm this:

MASS CLAIM TIME

Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:32:49 pm
Vig, you're claiming last. So stay quiet.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:33:23 pm
We know the setup is:

MDDVV-T-x

So there should just be one PR unclaimed.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:34:06 pm
And while the last member of the Mafia is a Roleblocker, this setup forbids blocking and shooting in the same night.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:38:48 pm
Lemme rephrase:

Vig: I don't know yet that I'll have you claim. If you do, we'll have 3 IC's in 7 players, and if Mafia choose to kill you at night, you'll at least get one shot off. That means we're 3v4, lynch one puts us at 3v3, shots to both sides put us at 2v2. That's mylo.

We may be better off playing with you quiet right now. That means we'll have 2 IC's against a pool of 5 players (including you). Mafia won't be able to straight pick you out to shoot tonight, meaning you may get 2 shots off (as long as we don't derplynch you).

That means today: 2v5. Lynch one is 2v4. Double shots is 1v3. You claim, 2v2. Lynch one is 2v1. Double shots and we win.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 24, 2013, 02:41:08 pm
I'm a VT.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 02:42:56 pm
I'm a VT.

STOP. No claiming VT. Only PR claims. (Sorry, wasn't clear)
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 24, 2013, 02:47:18 pm
I'm a VT.

STOP. No claiming VT. Only PR claims. (Sorry, wasn't clear)

Can hardly blame xerxes there haha.. You did say mass claim :).

I like having the vig claim, I think. One more confirmed town, because scum can't counterclaim.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 24, 2013, 02:48:19 pm
Oh no wait, I read your post again.  You're probably right
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 24, 2013, 03:08:01 pm
So to be clear, you currently want the unknown PR, and only the unknown PR, to claim?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:08:30 pm
I'm the one shot cop. Sadly I copped yuma night 1. Dude is definitely town, though!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:09:45 pm
So to be clear, you currently want the unknown PR, and only the unknown PR, to claim?

Correct! Since I obviously fail at putting together coherent thoughts right now. :P
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:12:17 pm
I'm the one shot cop. Sadly I copped yuma night 1. Dude is definitely town, though!

Bad one shot cop! Bad!

:(

Man, disappointing. I understand it, I suppose. But dude was either the Doctor or scum, and if he didn't claim Doctor, I was lynching him.

Basically, he was town, or dead scum (eventually).

Oh well. No use crying over spilled milk. At least we know you're town, which is good since you were projecting scummy vibes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 24, 2013, 03:17:32 pm
yuma doctor because he seemed to believe ash?

I had chairs down as doctor because he gave ash a townread with almost no explanation. So maybe that makes him scum now?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:23:32 pm
I'm the one shot cop. Sadly I copped yuma night 1. Dude is definitely town, though!

Bad one shot cop! Bad!

:(

Man, disappointing. I understand it, I suppose. But dude was either the Doctor or scum, and if he didn't claim Doctor, I was lynching him.

Basically, he was town, or dead scum (eventually).

Oh well. No use crying over spilled milk. At least we know you're town, which is good since you were projecting scummy vibes.
I'm sorry, I'm bad at picking stuff up - I still don't know what you are referring to.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:32:52 pm
So Eevee and I are IC's.

That leaves one scum in:

Chairs, xerxes, nkirbit, Voltaire and Mail-Mi.

There is also a full Vig in that group.

Now, I'm of the opinion that town doesn't need to know the identity of our Vig. We're not going to lynch him regardless, so assuming we lynch a VT, our Vig has a 1/3 chance of shooting scum. Scum on the other hand has a hell of a choice.

The disadvantage to the Vig not claiming is that we might be put in a spot where both the Vig and scum claim Vigilante, and we're in mylo (7 alive right now, lynch + 2 NK's = 4 alive tomorrow, or mylo if we don't kill scum).

Ehh, I don't know. If the Vig claims we have 3 IC's. We lynch one and the Vig has a 1/3 chance of hitting Mafia. Problem is, Mafia WILL shoot him tonight. If the Vig misses, Eevee and I are left alive to decide between two players. That would be a sucky way to lose if we choose wrong.

Eevee, help! I don't know what to do! I'll do, you know, actual scum hunting later, but I want to make sure we give ourselves the best strategy to win.

Ooh!

7 Alive now?

No Lynch, Vig doesn't claim. He's got a 1/4 chance of hitting scum. Scum have a 1/4 chance of hitting him. If scum kills our Vig, we're down to 5 tomorrow, with 2 IC's. We have two chances to pick scum out of 3 players.

If scum doesn't kill our Vig, then Vig claims. If scum counter claims, we've got 2 lynches to play with, so we win. If scum don't counter claim, there's only 2 players scum can be. Lynch one, shoot one, win.

Vote: No Lynch

Vigilante, don't claim. Shoot tonight. Worst case, scum try to roleblock you and succeed, nothing happens you claim tomorrow. If they try to roleblock you and fail, we're down to 6. You claim, we lynch a non-claimant. That makes 3 IC's going into night against 2 unknown. If scum let's you shoot, we win. If they don't, we win on lynches.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 24, 2013, 03:35:03 pm
So, posting in the middle of an in-progress re-read. Ash called sudgy-TA-theorel scum D1. *tips cap*

And I remember that mail-mi did what yuma caught theorel doing. nkirbit reads vaguely scummy.

PPE: Oh, perhaps no lynch! I need to read this.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:35:34 pm
Reposting for relative clarity:

7 Alive now?

No Lynch, Vig doesn't claim. He's got a 1/4 chance of hitting scum. Scum have a 1/4 chance of hitting him. If scum kills our Vig, we're down to 5 tomorrow, with 2 IC's. We have two chances to pick scum out of 3 players.

If scum doesn't kill our Vig, then Vig claims. If scum counter claims, we've got 2 lynches to play with, so we win. If scum don't counter claim, there's only 2 players scum can be. Lynch one, shoot one, win.

Vote: No Lynch

Vigilante, don't claim. Shoot tonight. Worst case, scum try to roleblock you and succeed, nothing happens you claim tomorrow. If they try to roleblock you and fail, we're down to 6. You claim, we lynch a non-claimant. That makes 3 IC's going into night against 2 unknown. If scum let's you shoot, we win. If they don't, we win on lynches.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:36:34 pm
Vote: No Lynch

Everyone hold off posting for a sec.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:37:38 pm
So, okay. I'm pretty convinced this is the best plan. We don't want to give mafia any clues as to who the vig is, Galzria, would it make sense to just cut the conversation off completely and proceed to the night?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:39:09 pm
Yeah, no hammering out the no-lynch. I think we should still discuss likely scum candidates for the sake of our Vigilante tonight. And I want everybody to respond first so that we know 100% Eevee is what he claims (although claiming that as scum is suicidal. Still, safety first).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:39:56 pm
If people get to react to the plan, the VT's might accidentally indicate that they aren't they aren't the vig or the vig might inadvertently give himself away. The less information scum has for their decisions, the better, right?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:40:51 pm
So, okay. I'm pretty convinced this is the best plan. We don't want to give mafia any clues as to who the vig is, Galzria, would it make sense to just cut the conversation off completely and proceed to the night?

Eh, see my above post. I at least want every player to comment first (those who haven't since your claim). After that we can either go straight to night, or sort things out first. The advantage to going straight to night is scum doesn't get the chance to bias our Vig.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:41:10 pm
I totally understand people need to react to my claim at least to the extent of not counterclaiming me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:41:43 pm
Hilarious amounts of talking past each other. Sorry, I should read the PPE's.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 24, 2013, 03:42:37 pm
Color-coding D1 with known flips/trustable claims.

Vote Count 1.12:

chairs (2): theorel, sudgy
sudgy (7): Twistedarcher, chairs, yuma, Nkirbit, Eevee, Voltaire, Robz888
ashersky (1): XerxesPraelor
Voltaire (1): Ashersky
Eevee (1): mail-mi

Not Voting (1): Galzria
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 24, 2013, 03:43:15 pm
Checking in to confirm I've seen today's posts.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 24, 2013, 03:44:30 pm
Color-coding D2 with known flips/trustable claims.

Vote Count 2.Final:

Theorel (6): Yuma, nkirbit, Twistedarcher, XerxesPraelor, Voltaire, Galzria

Not Voting (4): Eevee, Theorel, Mail-mi, Chairs
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 03:45:32 pm
The thing we have to determine is if discussing and scumhunting together helps the vig with his decision more than it helps the mafia to determine who the vig is.

If we want to have a "normal" day before no lynching, both the VT's and the vig have to be very very careful about giving anything away about their role.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:45:46 pm
Alright:

All Players:

Copy Paste the following into your next post, with no modifications, unless, well, you'll understand:

I have seen Eevee's claim and am not counter claiming.

Please don't post anything else other than that statement. When every player has posted, we're moving to night with a no-lynch.

Vigilante, use your best judgement. I supported your N1 choice, and I obviously supported your N2 choice. Don't accept Xerxes claim at face value, but don't just blindly shoot him either. The choice is yours.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 24, 2013, 03:46:14 pm
I have seen Eevee's claim and am not counter claiming.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 24, 2013, 03:46:50 pm
Reposting for relative clarity:

7 Alive now?

No Lynch, Vig doesn't claim. He's got a 1/4 chance of hitting scum. Scum have a 1/4 chance of hitting him. If scum kills our Vig, we're down to 5 tomorrow, with 2 IC's. We have two chances to pick scum out of 3 players.

If scum doesn't kill our Vig, then Vig claims. If scum counter claims, we've got 2 lynches to play with, so we win. If scum don't counter claim, there's only 2 players scum can be. Lynch one, shoot one, win.

Vote: No Lynch

Vigilante, don't claim. Shoot tonight. Worst case, scum try to roleblock you and succeed, nothing happens you claim tomorrow. If they try to roleblock you and fail, we're down to 6. You claim, we lynch a non-claimant. That makes 3 IC's going into night against 2 unknown. If scum let's you shoot, we win. If they don't, we win on lynches.

Galz, what if scum would shoot either you or eevee and just hope the vig misses? i wouldn't count on 3 ics tomorrow.




I am on my phone where I don't know how to copy paste, but i am not counter claiming eevee
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:47:10 pm
((Also, Xerxes, if you're our Vig, I love the quick VT claim. :P))
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 03:53:12 pm
Reposting for relative clarity:

7 Alive now?

No Lynch, Vig doesn't claim. He's got a 1/4 chance of hitting scum. Scum have a 1/4 chance of hitting him. If scum kills our Vig, we're down to 5 tomorrow, with 2 IC's. We have two chances to pick scum out of 3 players.

If scum doesn't kill our Vig, then Vig claims. If scum counter claims, we've got 2 lynches to play with, so we win. If scum don't counter claim, there's only 2 players scum can be. Lynch one, shoot one, win.

Vote: No Lynch

Vigilante, don't claim. Shoot tonight. Worst case, scum try to roleblock you and succeed, nothing happens you claim tomorrow. If they try to roleblock you and fail, we're down to 6. You claim, we lynch a non-claimant. That makes 3 IC's going into night against 2 unknown. If scum let's you shoot, we win. If they don't, we win on lynches.

Galz, what if scum would shoot either you or eevee and just hope the vig misses? i wouldn't count on 3 ics tomorrow.

That would bring us to 5 tomorrow, and the Vig can still safely claim (we've got 2 lynches). At that point we still get two town controlled kills on three players, either through lynches or the Vig shooting.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 24, 2013, 05:14:50 pm
I have seen Eevee's claim and am not counter claiming.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 24, 2013, 05:16:34 pm
No lynch plan is going to be best, IMO.

Waiting on voting for it until Galz says I can.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 05:21:45 pm
Just need Xerxes and Chairs to confirm that they're not counter-claiming Eevee.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 05:22:11 pm
Just need Xerxes and Chairs to confirm that they're not counter-claiming Eevee.

Although I suppose Xerxes already did. :P So just Chairs now.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 05:43:57 pm
If anybody can come up with a system that allows us to make all 4 kills (7 Alive, 2 IC's + Vig = 3, meaning 4 unknown players left), feel free to post it. I don't think it can be done (I think the maximum we can get is 3 - and there's a lot of different ways for that to happen), but I'm still all ears. I didn't think HP could be solved until it suddenly struck me, so, maybe I've missed something.

On that note, even after Chairs has cleared Eevee as well, don't hammer out to no-lynch right away. I'm willing to let this stall for a few hours to give everybody a chance to think everything over, look back, etc.

Eevee: I'm debating this, but do you think it would be worthwhile for each player to post a list (no reasons need to be given, so we don't tip anything) of the remaining 4 players from scummiest to towniest?

Scum-v-
A
B
C
D
Town-^-

We had have 5 lists posted, only one of which would be by scum. This would give our Vigilante an idea of where people stand. He knows who he is already, which means he's just looking at the 4 other lists (3 by town, 1 by scum), but he'll at least have an idea of where the town opinion is (knowing that 3/4 aren't trying to mislead him, even if he doesn't know who is who). Plus, if the Vig does shoot town, it'll give us another set of credible reads to look back on tomorrow.

I don't think we'll be concerned about tipping off where our Vig is if we do it this way, and even if somehow we do, and scum kill the Vig tonight, we're still left with 5 alive tomorrow, with both you and myself around (So two more lynches, out of 3 players).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 24, 2013, 05:45:22 pm
That sounds harmless and potentially useful in the future. Totally approved.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 24, 2013, 05:48:29 pm
chairs
mail-mi
nkirbit
xerxes
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 24, 2013, 05:51:51 pm
Who are the 5? Me, XP, volt, chairs? Who else?

PPE it's nkirbit! Okay...

Chairs
Nkirbit
Volt
XP
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 24, 2013, 05:53:23 pm
Scum
Chairs
Mail-Mi
Voltaire
Xerxes



Mail-Mi and Voltaire are pretty close.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 05:53:37 pm
In that case, if everybody doesn't mind:

Take your time, read back, consider flips, look at interactions. Form your reads. When all of that is done, please post your reads list, in order of scummiest to towniest. You may leave Eevee and myself off the list, as well as yourself.

So I'm looking at 5 lists posted, one each from: Xerxes, Chairs, Mail-Mi, Voltaire, Nkirbit. Each list should contain the other 4 players I just listed, in order from scum to town:

Example (from Chairs perspective, alphabetically ordered):

Scum-v-
Nkirbit
Mail-Mi
Xerxes
Voltare
Town-^-

That's it. No explanation needed for your reads. Just your list. Myself or Eevee, or our Vigilante will ask you to explain your reads tomorrow if you're still alive, so make sure you think them through fully. Take your time. We're in no rush right now. If you die in the night, at least your reads will be listed in thread and we'll have that much more information to decide our last two kills based off of.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 05:54:07 pm
PPE: 3. :P
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 05:55:34 pm
Haha I really hope Xerxes is town. ;D
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 24, 2013, 05:57:04 pm
Headed to work. I'll be around on my mobile if anything comes up. Eevee, if anything else jumps to mind, go ahead and take the lead on it. If anybody else can figure out how to make all 4 kills before endgame, feel free to put it out there.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 24, 2013, 10:37:00 pm
I'm not counter claiming. I'll do that list as soon as I can
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 24, 2013, 11:38:42 pm
Okay, not phone posting for a moment..

Scum to town:
Mail-Mi
Nkirbit
Xerxes
Voltaire
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: XerxesPraelor on October 25, 2013, 12:54:05 am
List: ( I'll be gone for 2 days starting now)

Mail-mi
Voltaire
Chairs
nKirbit
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 25, 2013, 10:35:35 am
That's everyone. vote: no lynch
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 25, 2013, 11:00:55 am
Yep, hammer away.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 25, 2013, 11:20:04 am
vote: no lynch
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 25, 2013, 11:30:37 am
Good luck tonight Vig. Hopefully this is game right here.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 25, 2013, 11:31:39 am
May the force be with us.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 25, 2013, 11:37:59 am
Keep this in mind tonight, Vig.  Some wonderful words for you to live by:

“I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my eye.

I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my mind.

I do not kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.”
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 25, 2013, 11:43:10 am
I trust you, vig, whoever you are.

I don't trust you, mafia, whoever you are.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 25, 2013, 11:54:30 am
THREAD LOCKED
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 25, 2013, 12:04:37 pm
I cannot understand these people.

First, they tell me that Dong Zhuo has already been found and neatly eviscerated.  Apparently this happened while I was asleep for all yesterday and yet no one bothered to wake me up?  These camp attendants are as "attendant" as rocks.

And yet we are still here.  Apparently there are still some enemy forces holding Hu Lao Gate.  So we will march to engage them, yes?  No, of course not.  Instead, by popular decree, we hurry up and wait instead!  Where did these people learn tactics?  I go by the book of Sun Tzu, not Snail Tzu!

They tell me this gives our "vig" time to do his work.  But no one agrees on how to pronounce it.  Some rhyme with "pig," some rhyme with "ridge." 

I am going back to bed.

- excerpted from the journals of Cao Cao

Vote Count 3.1:

No Lynch (4): Galzria, Eevee, Voltaire, chairs

Not Voting (3): mail-mi, Nkirbit, XerxesPraelor

With 7 alive, it took 4 to (no) lynch.

Night 3 has begun.  All night actions are due by Sunday, October 27, at 12:00 noon Forum time.

All players are to PM both mods at least once during the night to confirm their continued participation in the game.

This thread is STILL LOCKED.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 27, 2013, 08:46:19 pm
To know the ending of this story we must start at the beginning.

Dhong Zhuo had captured the emperor and was poised to take down the Han Dynasty thus sending the world into a spiral of Chaos. With the fearsome Lu Bu by his side and the beautiful Diao Chan, he was a force to be reckoned with.

Yuan Shao led and allied coalition toward Hulao Gate in hopes of defeating Dong Zhuo and his forces. Their army was full of brave warriors but many fell at the hands of the villainous Dhong Zhuo and his men.

Their camp was full of traitors and in fighting. Much of the generals were unhappy to be working together and others were frightened as even the ghost of Zhang Jiao, leader of the yellow turbans had risen for this great battle.

The first night of camp, one of their own, Zhang Fei, had too much wine and killed the mighty Ashersky, Town 1-shot Doctor Huang Gai in a drunken rage.

Luckily the Next day the Allied generals put their heads together and found Theorel, Mafia Godfather Dong Zhuo hiding out in their own camp and executed him.

The second night of camp, Yuma, Town Doctor Sun Jian went to avenge his soldier but was slain at the hands of Lu Bu. However that was not all that would take place, Zhang Fei angry with himself set out to hunt down and slay all that stood for evil. He then took his first victim Twistedarcher, mafia goon Diao Chan.

As the snow settled on Hulao gate, the scene was set for a battle that would be remembered throughout all of history.

The Allied forces marched toward the gate, they knew who was waiting. The great Lu Bu, the last of the enemy forces. He had apparently been staying hidden among the allies and had slain Nkirbit, Face officer Kong Rong during the night. He quickly stole away to Hulao to await the oncoming forces. He stood for not an ideal, not kingdom, he stood for himself. Who of the allies would be enough to face him. One man, nay, it would take ten thousand men to take down Lu Bu.

Just then Zhang Fei stepped forward, "how about I try him on for size". Yes maybe, a man with the strength of ten thousand men would be enough. Lu Bu and Zhang Fei clashed spear dueling on into the night.

"I'll cut you down to size", steaming with anger and the need to redeem himself, Zhang Fei fought with such fever he overtook Lu Bu and struck a Fatal blow. Thus ending the rebellion forever and setting peace to the land.

Town Wins

Mail-mi, Lu Bu, has been slain by Chairs, Town Vigilante Zhang Fei and MVP.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 27, 2013, 08:50:18 pm
Woo hoo!

Awesome vigging.  Town player in a single game of the year mafia award.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 27, 2013, 08:51:23 pm
Man, town owns this set-up.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 27, 2013, 08:52:44 pm
Awesome job Chairs!  And Yuma!  The performance by both of you guys are among the strongest I've ever seen, if not the best two.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 27, 2013, 08:52:54 pm
Awesome job, Chairs.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 27, 2013, 08:53:39 pm
I would like to point out that I Doctored Chairs with my Night 1 One-Shot.

Of course, he killed me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 27, 2013, 08:53:52 pm
Hot damn. Chairs chairs chairs chairs chairs you were amazing. Words cannot describe.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 27, 2013, 08:54:37 pm
I would like to point out that I Doctored Chairs with my Night 1 One-Shot.

Of course, he killed me.

Are we sure that Chairs killed Ash and mafia killed Robz?  Can someone confirm this?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 27, 2013, 08:55:09 pm
I would like to point out that I Doctored Chairs with my Night 1 One-Shot.

Of course, he killed me.

Are we sure that Chairs killed Ash and mafia killed Robz?  Can someone confirm this?

Confirmed
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 27, 2013, 08:55:22 pm
I would like to point out that I Doctored Chairs with my Night 1 One-Shot.

Of course, he killed me.

Are we sure that Chairs killed Ash and mafia killed Robz?  Can someone confirm this?

The flavor does.  Also, scum confirmed that in the Speccy.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 27, 2013, 08:59:53 pm
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? Chairs was vig? But...But.... he said he wouldn't vig night 1! Argh! I was so sure it was Volt or Nkirbit. UGH.

Ah well. I need to stop being scum in this set up  :P
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 27, 2013, 09:03:35 pm
So I actually had an interesting decision towards the end of day3.  After we hammered No Lynch, I wrote up a decently long post talking about who the Vig should shoot, but inserted a "slip" that I was the vigilante.  It had a sentence addressing the vigilante in the first person.

I was thinking about posting it to attempt to draw the nightkill, since if Mafia shot a VT, the game was over (it turns out I drew the NK anyway.. hah!  I thought for sure either Galzria or Eevee was going to be shot.)  I ended up not posting it for the following reasons.

-I was worried that the actual vig would see it and counterclaim.
-I was worried that the mafia would see it and realize it was.
-I was worried that the mafia wouldn't see it.
-I was worried that another town member (or the mafia) would see it and press me on it.

It was really something that I would've wanted out there, but almost no discussion about it.  Ultimately, I decided to delete the message and just hope the vig shot correctly (and he did!).  We were in a great position, and having this plan misfire and derail us was one of the ways we could lose.  But I did think it's an interesting thought, and wondered what you guys thought about that potential option.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 27, 2013, 09:05:07 pm
Excellently done, town! Chairs, you are going to make it very hard for me to argue against vigs in the future...
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltaire on October 27, 2013, 09:08:42 pm
nkirbit, I suspected you were most likely to be the vig anyway. I like that idea - I wrote a few posts that I hoped left enough room to imply I was the vig, but then I totally ****ed that strategy up by pointing out ash's great reads on D1.  :P
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 27, 2013, 09:10:27 pm
This means that, starting tomorrow, Game of Thrones will be the only mafia game running! :D
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 27, 2013, 09:21:40 pm
I'll discuss my thoughts on this when I can tether my phone and type, but I'm happy I was right.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Robz888 on October 27, 2013, 09:22:29 pm
Love the flavor. Thanks, bro!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Archetype on October 27, 2013, 09:29:27 pm
I was vaguely following, but awesome job chairs! You be a Vig more often!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 27, 2013, 09:31:35 pm
Epic.

Wonderfully done Chairs. Perfect choices each and every night (yes, N1 too. Gave you and everybody else a ton of information with very little lost in terms of town power, since Ash was a VT at that point).

Very well done town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 27, 2013, 09:35:20 pm
I'll note that, with the exception of mail-mi (go figure) every person listed their scummiest reads to be either Chairs (who wasn't going to Vig himself), or Mail-Mi.

Mail-Mi didn't stand much of a chance.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Archetype on October 27, 2013, 09:36:05 pm
I was vaguely following, but awesome job chairs! You shouldbe a Vig more often!

Good job to Galzria, too!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 27, 2013, 09:38:55 pm
Woo hoo!

Awesome vigging.  Town player in a single game of the year mafia award.

Yep, this. ;D
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 27, 2013, 09:39:43 pm
I'll discuss my thoughts on this when I can tether my phone and type, but I'm happy I was right.

What was your thought process on why to kill me N1?

I agree with most everyone that I wasn't a bad target.  Scum would have been a better target, obviously, but Galz is right that my flip was super-helpful for town in that it solidified a lot of town reads on me, let you know I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, and I had used my power (to protect the MVP Vig, for which I deserve props, I've decided).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 27, 2013, 09:45:26 pm
Woo hoo!

Awesome vigging.  Town player in a single game of the year mafia award.

Yep, this. ;D

agreed! This was a very fun game. Oh and chairs... again, I initially was very against your shot on ashersky--because I knew that ashersky was a doctor--but once galz explained to me why it was a good move I decided to continue with something of a dumb gambit to get in an argument with the IC. Nearly everything I said after the first post was pretty much made up. From my vantage point killing ash was bad, but from yours. It was a pretty good choice, well done on everyone else.

I would love to hear the logic behind your kills. Did you explain them in PM form to mcmc and voltgloss?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 27, 2013, 09:46:41 pm
This means that, starting tomorrow, Game of Thrones will be the only mafia game running! :D

I'll get stack the deck open for signups in the next day. But won't be starting it until ToyStory is well under way.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: EFHW on October 27, 2013, 10:04:38 pm
Congratulations to chairs!  And Town.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: EFHW on October 27, 2013, 10:04:54 pm
play hangman!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 27, 2013, 10:06:27 pm
Can we be given the mod and mafia QT?
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: yuma on October 27, 2013, 10:11:17 pm
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? Chairs was vig? But...But.... he said he wouldn't vig night 1! Argh! I was so sure it was Volt or Nkirbit. UGH.

Ah well. I need to stop being scum in this set up  :P

I actually think this was one of your stronger performances as you, as well as your teammates, kinda got caught in some unfortunate circumstances. I really liked your bussing of TA day1 and staying away from the sudgy wagon. I know voltaire pointed attention to it (saying it was similar to what I was calling out theorel for), but I felt it was really well done and very authentic. There certainly weren't any of the "alarm bells," and I think I would have been hesitant to lynch you had I been alive and chairs not shot you day4.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 27, 2013, 10:23:01 pm
I'll discuss my thoughts on this when I can tether my phone and type, but I'm happy I was right.

What was your thought process on why to kill me N1?

I agree with most everyone that I wasn't a bad target.  Scum would have been a better target, obviously, but Galz is right that my flip was super-helpful for town in that it solidified a lot of town reads on me, let you know I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, and I had used my power (to protect the MVP Vig, for which I deserve props, I've decided).

Hey, I'll give you props for that, even if he wasn't shot.

And I really hope you don't hate me as an IC. I know that both this game and HP were rough on you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 27, 2013, 10:26:14 pm
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? Chairs was vig? But...But.... he said he wouldn't vig night 1! Argh! I was so sure it was Volt or Nkirbit. UGH.

Ah well. I need to stop being scum in this set up  :P

I actually think this was one of your stronger performances as you, as well as your teammates, kinda got caught in some unfortunate circumstances. I really liked your bussing of TA day1 and staying away from the sudgy wagon. I know voltaire pointed attention to it (saying it was similar to what I was calling out theorel for), but I felt it was really well done and very authentic. There certainly weren't any of the "alarm bells," and I think I would have been hesitant to lynch you had I been alive and chairs not shot you day4.

I agree with this, I (and others, I think) might have gotten to Mail-Mi by process of elimination, but that was really it.. you didn't do anything that made me think you were scum at all.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: sudgy on October 27, 2013, 10:37:31 pm
Great job town.  Killing four scum in three days?  I've never heard of that happening before!

Also, as I said in the speccy, I think I would have still acted similar to how I did if I was town.  What I posted was all entirely genuine, including how to catch me (other than that I was town, obviously).
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 27, 2013, 10:39:21 pm
Okay, so here's the process I had (yuma, I'm afraid I didn't PM the mods anything at the time to explain my shots):

D1: I said I wasn't going to shoot anybody.  HOWEVER, we didn't all agree to that, and (this is key) we D1 lynched the SK.  This, in particular, really changed my mind (but I'm glad I claimed not-going-to-shoot because it threw me off the vig-hunting that could have happened).

N1: I wasn't sure who the Mafia were, not having a ton of reads on anybody, and I -really- felt like the best thing I could do was be 100% sure that ashersky was really a 1-shot doctor (no offense, ash, but if anybody was going to fakeclaim 1-shot doc it would be you!) and in the process give the rest of Town a better idea of setup - something that would end up key to Town D3 play, as the N1 and N2 shots confirmed we had a full vigilante without any need to claim.

D2: Theorel almost immediately jumped out for EVERYBODY, and got lynched.  In the process, TA sounded somewhat insincere and tripped a little bell in my head.  I was actually most worried by that shot - was I unintentionally shooting the doctor who was hoping to be obv-mislynch enough that Mafia wouldn't shoot him? I actually didn't recognize yuma as doctor and was surprised at the flip later.

N2: As stated, TA felt scummy to me after D2, so I felt it was worthwhile to risk shooting the doc - and luckily I was right and he wasn't just intentionally playing scummy.  This really got me excited, honestly, more than the D3 shot even, because it was my weakest shot.

D3: The no-lynch plan was awesome, and the quick "scum to chum" that everybody wrote up sealed the deal.  I knew for sure after reading those that it was either mail-mi or nkirbit (or I was -really- being well-played by Voltaire or Xerxes), and after reading just the scum to chum a few times, I decided mail-mi would be N3's shot and nkirbit would be N4.

N3: As stated, going into N3 I'd already picked N3/N4 vig targets.  I think if we'd gone to D4 we'd quickhammer a no-lynch.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 27, 2013, 10:41:48 pm
Also, I don't see the links for mod/mafia/speccy QT, please advise.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: nkirbit on October 27, 2013, 10:43:00 pm
Yeah, Galz, what gave away Yuma being the doctor?  I didn't notice anything day1.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 27, 2013, 11:10:29 pm
Yeah, Galz, what gave away Yuma being the doctor?  I didn't notice anything day1.

;D

He didn't policy lynch Ash for self voting.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 27, 2013, 11:15:57 pm
Yeah, Galz, what gave away Yuma being the doctor?  I didn't notice anything day1.

;D

He didn't policy lynch Ash for self voting.

And I'm dead serious here. This tipped me into reading his every defense of Ashersky. The way he spoke about finding out the truth later in the game, combined with how he pushed me to get off Ashersky, after noting the lack of a policy vote, left me certain he was the Doctor. Had we gotten to mylo/lylo, or whenever I decided claiming was going to happen, if he claimed anything else I would've lynched him on the spot.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 27, 2013, 11:22:40 pm
I'll discuss my thoughts on this when I can tether my phone and type, but I'm happy I was right.

What was your thought process on why to kill me N1?

I agree with most everyone that I wasn't a bad target.  Scum would have been a better target, obviously, but Galz is right that my flip was super-helpful for town in that it solidified a lot of town reads on me, let you know I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, and I had used my power (to protect the MVP Vig, for which I deserve props, I've decided).

Hey, I'll give you props for that, even if he wasn't shot.

And I really hope you don't hate me as an IC. I know that both this game and HP were rough on you.

We may have a love/hate relationship when we are both town, but we can't argue with results.  I played a bigger part in HP, but in both games, I think the arguments we had were incidental to the progress we made together.

You get me better than anyone, except maybe yuma.  Riling me up is part of getting more out of me as town (and probably, catching me as scum at some point).  The formula works.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mail-mi on October 27, 2013, 11:26:35 pm
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? Chairs was vig? But...But.... he said he wouldn't vig night 1! Argh! I was so sure it was Volt or Nkirbit. UGH.

Ah well. I need to stop being scum in this set up  :P

I actually think this was one of your stronger performances as you, as well as your teammates, kinda got caught in some unfortunate circumstances. I really liked your bussing of TA day1 and staying away from the sudgy wagon. I know voltaire pointed attention to it (saying it was similar to what I was calling out theorel for), but I felt it was really well done and very authentic. There certainly weren't any of the "alarm bells," and I think I would have been hesitant to lynch you had I been alive and chairs not shot you day4.

[insert hooray cat]

Hey hey hey.... 2 spots open in toy story!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 28, 2013, 12:20:18 am
Sorry been busy,

Here's the qt's

Speccy http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/bFUdA2GzWEbJ

Mod http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/c2vdpGZTfuJyq

Mafia http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/B7xt8ckXuCU
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: ashersky on October 28, 2013, 01:25:51 am
So I doctored scum TA it seems.  So I give back any props for that.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Galzria on October 28, 2013, 01:37:27 am
I love that I was never protected, yet never died. :P
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Eevee on October 28, 2013, 06:45:50 am
Winning is fun!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: mcmcsalot on October 28, 2013, 07:41:25 am
I love that I was never protected, yet never died. :P

This, I think IC is a really strong role, it's ability to limit the lynch pool alone makes it incredible. I think scum needs to take more consideration into killing ic early so that there are more potential mislynches and more chaos. I think currently mafia lives in chaos and dragging out days, so this setup in particular allows for a lot of clarity and logic that just screws scum over.

Oh also, I cannot believe how that game worked out thematically. Almost perfect. Thanks everyone for playing and stick with me through all my mistakes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Twistedarcher on October 28, 2013, 09:04:46 am
So I doctored scum TA it seems.  So I give back any props for that.

Once again, we fail at reading one another!
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: Voltgloss on October 28, 2013, 11:15:33 am
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? Chairs was vig? But...But.... he said he wouldn't vig night 1! Argh!

And that right there is why chairs wins MVP.
Title: Re: Mafia XXXII: Dynasty Warriors Mafia
Post by: chairs on October 28, 2013, 05:19:17 pm
WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? Chairs was vig? But...But.... he said he wouldn't vig night 1! Argh!

And that right there is why chairs wins MVP.

 8)