Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webadict]

Extend.

[Double A]

NL?

[Criptfeind]

God I do not know who to believe. Web has some good points so I guess Extend.

[Mr.Person]

@Mr.Person... You act like we'll know who's a poisoner and never be guessing "is the dead guy the poisoner?"

But you're not contributing despite both suggesting to NL (and shorten) while also complaining about people to contribute. Your plan, while good in perfect land, lacks certainty to win. At least if we lynch now, we won't insta-lose on the off-chance we mispoison.

I never said either way was foolproof. You're obviously more inclined to lynching today. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. I will promise you one thing though; if I become sure that anybody is scum, I'll vote to lynch them today. One thing I do want to mention is that the poisoner dying and fucking everything up can happen no matter what we do, lynch or NL.  But if you wanna be sure, we can always NL at 6p. It'll mean that the mafia kill and poison kill both happen if the poisoner poisoned. If the poisoner is dead or poisoned somebody who died, it'll be a regular old 5p lylo. There, security. We'll either get to lylo or have a town aligned poison kill to act as our lylo-breaker. Much better than potentially having some people be told not to inspect simply because they might be poisoner.

Really? You must not be paying any attention at all. Not only am I not voting to NL, I'm voting to extend. I've been asking questions. Not good ones, mind you, but I'm not the ideal candidate for starting conversations both in mafia and in real life.

Since if I continue this facade of waiting for you to ask the elephant-in-the-room question and dodging around the issue so that I can avoid the issue for a little longer, I'm going to go nuts, I'm just going to come out and say that I was going to wait til tomorrow to scumhunt both because I wanted a NL anyways and there's no reason to argue for something that's already happening and because I didn't feel like trying to force everyone to contribute because I correctly guessed it would be impossibly hard. Also, I've been playing shitty chat-room mafia with shitty players so much I've gotten really fucking lazy about scumhunting. Just going to focus on the now and try getting this game at least a little back on track so things aren't more fucked up than they already are.

Speaking of the now...

Yeah, pretty much. There isn't much to do until you get a second set of results for comparison in Dethy games.

But then how am I supposed to tell if you're scum? How are you going to find the scum? What's your plan to win?

Eugh, okay, let me backtrack here.

When I said pointless, I meant that during day 1 we barely have enough information (and most of it is probably skewed by roles!) to do anything. After people had suggested a plan, there was literally nothing of use for me to say that could help catch scum in any way, shape or form. Of course scumhunting is useful. It's how we catch scum and win.

You do realize that there are mafia games with a setup called "mountainous" where there are only mafiosos and townies with no night actions at all, and yet somehow the town still has a good chance of winning? So why are you choosing to rely on the cop inspections instead of scumhunting?

[Bandages]

Eugh, okay, let me backtrack here.

When I said pointless, I meant that during day 1 we barely have enough information (and most of it is probably skewed by roles!) to do anything. After people had suggested a plan, there was literally nothing of use for me to say that could help catch scum in any way, shape or form. Of course scumhunting is useful. It's how we catch scum and win.

You do realize that there are mafia games with a setup called "mountainous" where there are only mafiosos and townies with no night actions at all, and yet somehow the town still has a good chance of winning? So why are you choosing to rely on the cop inspections instead of scumhunting?

Because we're all cops. Myself and one other got town results for you, but one person got scum. This is important. It is data.

Also, I don't know why you think I'm opposed to scumhunting. I've said again and again that I have nothing to contribute so early on. Neither have a lot of other players. It's kind of suspicious that you are so up in my business while webadict is calling attention to your suspicious behavior.

[webadict]

Bad answer Bandages. It's only semi-correct that I'm calling attention to Mr.Person, but your sentiment is ruined when you deflect using his deflection. It's generally bad play to deflect at all, but Mr.Person's trying (somewhat) to answer my suspicions as opposed to what you just did, which was "webadict's suspicious of you; that's suspicious." Keep in mind that not only are you trying to prove you're not mafia but that the other guy IS. Now you just made yourself sound like an idiot.

The problem we have is that relying on the roles would be nice if they were clear-cut (Sane, Insane, Naïve, Paranoid.) However, we have three roles that render them useless: Half-sane (The equivalent of Random, which can look like any role), Insanitizer (Which makes roles impossible to determine, unless you know who they targeted), and the Hippy (Which is basically an Ice Cream Man.) Without those roles, we wouldn't have an issues. In fact, even with one or two of those roles, we might not have issues. But, now we're just screwed.

So, now that it doesn't matter, we might as well just scan the person next on the list, like criptfeind suggested. I'm still teettering on its usefulness vs. Scum knowingness, but I'll see what I can come up with between now and then.

[Mr.Person]

You do realize that there are mafia games with a setup called "mountainous" where there are only mafiosos and townies with no night actions at all, and yet somehow the town still has a good chance of winning? So why are you choosing to rely on the cop inspections instead of scumhunting?

Because we're all cops. Myself and one other got town results for you, but one person got scum. This is important. It is data.

Also, I don't know why you think I'm opposed to scumhunting. I've said again and again that I have nothing to contribute so early on. Neither have a lot of other players. It's kind of suspicious that you are so up in my business while webadict is calling attention to your suspicious behavior.

Even if 5 people all got town results on me, that doesn't prove anything. Even if 5 players all get mafia results on me, that doesn't prove anything, either. Same for any other player. We might be able to determine a small, juicy nugget of golden information if we all inspect right, but we're not going to break the setup or anything.

You're opposed to scumhunting since you're not doing it. You have nothing to contribute? Bullshit! Hell, you're contributing right now. Neither have a lot of players? There's a term for that... oh yeah, bandwagoning. I believe we dislike bandwagoning in mafia, right? And then I love how your "ace in the hole" defense is that I shouldn't be attacking you since I'm being attacked. That's actually backwards; it would be weird if I wasn't attacking anyone because I was being attacked. So what, you want me to do nothing and just twiddle my thumbs while waiting on Webadict to respond? No, I'm not playing that game. Even if Webadict pulls some bullshit and manages to convince everyone that I'm scum (which he is very capable of doing), that doesn't change the fact that very few other players are actually scumhunting. Now I'm not saying that not scumhunting is scummy enough that everybody needs to be killed or that I'm the pinnacle of scumhunting perfection, I just want to see this laissez-faire attitude end. I had it, it was bad when I had it. Why then would I allow others to have it? Yes, we have a lot of cops. No, they're not going to win the setup. Consider it this way; the mafia's going to make somebody useless for the night (insanitizer), the hippy's going to make somebody useless permanently, I've already been made useless, and two players began the game as useless. Remember, there were only 4 useful cops. Two are sane, one is insane, and one switches between sane and insane. There are 4 players lying about their results. Two or three players are now useless. Two, three, four, or five players could be useless tomorrow... but wait, there's only four useful players to begin with. So it's quite possible for all of our useful cops to be dead or useless tomorrow.

Seriously, fuck da police. We need to do this without them.

Oh, and just to further prove that NL is the best strategy, consider this. Do we really even WANT to get to 5p lylo? Remember, we have a survivor. Survivors are mafia-ally that lose if they die, so if we get to 5p lylo with the mafia-ally alive, he or she will just NL and win. 6p mylo is actually safer here.

[Bandages]

Urgh, fine, I'm a dumbass, sorry. I've only played a few games of mafia, and have never had such confusing rules as these. I dunno, I thought we could use logic to figure it out but I guess not? I dunno, are we just going to play this like a regular game of mafia with a few added hints for us? Cause if so, then yeah, standard scumhunting does make a lot more sense.

[webadict]

One last question, Red: what choices does the Insanitizer get? Any in play or others?

[RedWarrior0]

He may choose: Sane, Insane, Naive, Paranoid, Stoned (does not count for Hippy since it lasts only the night), Random. However, they can choose Random once and are restricted to only targetting each player once.

[Toaster]

I think the setup would work better if the larger game concept was fleshed out first.  Two sets of SPIN cops, two scum, and one third party, maybe something simple like a antimiller survivor.  Test the balance of that before adding in the crazies.  This setup definitely needs more town.

Anyway, game!  Let's hunt some scum bums!  We all need to work together if we're going to root out the scum.

Jokerman:  You're doing a great job of lurking, with your two whole posts.  You said we should try something else, and said you didn't like a no lynch, but you didn't suggest any alternatives.  Why don't you actually contribute instead of standing in the background?

Webadict:  Obviously, if someone is scummy, we should lynch them.  What would you do if no one person stood out?  Would you find someone anyway, lynch someone with many results to gather maximum information on sanity, or go with the no lynch?

(Personally, I'd lean toward a no lynch at this point if no one stood out as scummy.)

Double A:  You didn't answer my question.

Double A, what do you think the best plan for scanning is?

You're posting, but without content.

Lonewolf:

Last four posts ->  Webadict shows us how it's done.

Buddying much?



RedWarrior:  Could you clarify the exact effects of being stoned?

[RedWarrior0]

Normal Stoned: You're high all night every night, so you really don't care about your inspections, and just mark everyone down as neutral.

Stoned as a result of the Insanitizer: Somebody smoked a shitton of weed at your house, and you're high off the secondhand smoke. You really can't tell what the target is so you just mark him down as neutral.

[webadict]

Hmm... Well, I'm still trying to figure out what I can learn from the inspections, but you're probably not surprised that the answer is pretty near zero. Still plan to post what I can, but you're probably better without it.

I'd just like to say that we could easily inspect the same player and find a lot. What I've found is that Mr.Person is probably not neutral aligned, but that's still unknown. I think we'd be better to inspect one person with a NL, or we can lynch and then inspect the next person after you in the player sign-ups.

It sounds stupid, but we can double tomorrow by choosing someone today.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Jokerman:  You're doing a great job of lurking, with your two whole posts.  You said we should try something else, and said you didn't like a no lynch, but you didn't suggest any alternatives.  Why don't you actually contribute instead of standing in the background?

Holy Hell, Toaster, how hard can it be? I don't like a no-lynch, therefore my suggestion is...LYNCH DURP DURP. I didn't realize I needed to spell that out for you. Were you expecting me to suggest a half-lynch?

In the meantime, however, Mr.Person has raised a point that I never really thought about before, regarding why a NL is the best strategy. I didn't realize how fast we could go into LyLo in this game, if we mislynched or if the scum hit everyone they needed to.

Relying on the police in this game is a terrible idea. We have no idea which of us are right or just crazy, and that the mechanic that the scum are relying on us falling prey to. If we keep trying to put weight into the inspections, before we have any information to show us who might be right and who might not be, then we're spinning our wheels and getting nothing done.

So, what I'm saying is that while there are definite merits to a NL, I think that it's more important that we get information via lynch so that we can figure out what's going on.

[Lonewolf I]

Lonewolf:

Last four posts ->  Webadict shows us how it's done.

Buddying much?

Blatantly, with trumpets and fanfare and those little paper thingies that one blows into to make the annoying kazoo-like sound.  Webadict is my homeboy.  Would you like to call me scum for it?

Anyway, I have yet to see anything I find particularly scummy, and have not been persuaded by the arguments for a lynch.

Jokerman - Would you rather lynch Mr. Person or Org if we're going to be lynching for info?  I assume they're the main choices since each got three inspections.