Mystery Mafia 2- Game Over! But who won!?

[The Fonz]

Dear God, I actually have a town read on farside here. She's only made one post i absolutely hate, as opposed to the usual... most of them.

Also, the Patrick-wolf theory stands up perfectly. I will announce intent to vote, and request a claim, for reasons that i am happy to elaborate on post-claim.

[The Fonz]

Hey now, no need to get excited! Relax and enjoy my wares!

But alas alcohol is poisonous to my soul and anyone who drinks it shall kill me.

BONUS.

MafiaSSK never really contributes. We basically have the opportunity to policy-lynch someone whose very existence makes the site worse, until such time as he either adopts a decent playstyle or quits. Let's do it.

Also, having re-read Patrick, his play seems to make a lot more sense than it did reading along. I no longer intend to vote him. The vengeful vig theory really has a lot of evidence behind it. Besides, think. If he's trying to argue that that kill wasn't him, even if it was, he can't do it again all game or it gives him away. I'm fine with that.

[The Fonz]

Promises, promises.

Buy pint of beer.

Just be glad yos2 isn't here.

[The Fonz]

Give 'em to me.

I have a proven track record of shooting lurkers.

[The Fonz]

It's noteworthy, actually, how the whole patrick thing has allowed everyone, and i mean everyone, to stop scumhunting entirely.

It annoys me immensely to not be able to remedy this right now.

[The Fonz]

Vote: Forbiddanlight

I don't believe anyone could reasonably have thought that was a good idea. The whole 'SK' thing was complete horse manure, from beginning to end.

[The Fonz]

Forbiddanlight; it would be a lot more believable to me if you made that kind of assertion like, before you killed him.

Personally, I think you're scum who took the line of least resistance.

[The Fonz]

Actually, I want MafiaSSK to explain why he's not dead.

[The Fonz]

At worst, we get rid of MafiaSSK.

At best, dead scum.

I'm happy.

[The Fonz]

Woah with the quicklynching, people.

I'd support a hypo today, I think.

[The Fonz]

Woah with the quicklynching, people.

I'd support a hypo today, I think.

I would like to hear more from you as you have been quiet throughout the game since you have been here.

This is untrue.

Woah with the quicklynching, people.

I'd support a hypo today, I think.

You realize you supported mafiassk lynch yesterday but didn't vote him.

When farside voted him, that was a lynching majority.

You realize you supported mafiassk lynch yesterday but didn't vote him.

And seriously, hypocop only benefits scum IMO. It narrows down their choices for cop killing. Why the hell would you support this, Fonz?

Because your opinion, as so often, is wrong.

We know that a kill was stopped last night (assuming away the possibility of a deliberate or accidental lack of kill put in, which i don't think is likely) but we don't know whether it was a bulletproof, a doc, a jk or an RB. One of these roles may have info that clears or incriminates someone- but there is the usual problem that there is the risk of more than one, and ending up with both claiming, and not knowing which of them it was.

A hypoaction means that if one of these roles should die, we can then go back and evaluate things. It's better to risk that than have a role which has info die unclaimed.

[The Fonz]

Actually, no. I initially endorse the patrick-wolf theory, before going strongly against it after re-reading and understanding what patrick was saying. I complain about people not scumhunting, which still applies- it doesn't look to me like anyone's doing re-reads, or looking closely for suspicious behaviour- people are still just going, ok, seems a few people find this guy suspicious, let's kill him. I then strongly attack FL for a 'vigging' of Patrick that makes absolutely no sense at all for a town player to do.

[The Fonz]

A hypoaction means that if one of these roles should die, we can then go back and evaluate things. It's better to risk that than have a role which has info die unclaimed.

Or makes it damned obvious who that role is ENSURING their death.

Except that in this case, scum don't know if the kill was stopped by doc, rb, or jk, so they don't know what they're looking for.

Also, we don't know the interactions of the strong drink either. Essenitally though, the scum benefit far more from a hypo claim then town does.

That's just not true.

And deadline was fast approaching. Not buying it.

What difference does that make if THE LYNCH MAJORITY HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED?

[The Fonz]

Except that in this case, scum don't know if the kill was stopped by doc, rb, or jk, so they don't know what they're looking for.

LEt's say it was a doc protect. They claim and their protection. It matches the scum kill. WHOOOPS! Rb claims, say they blocked a supposed scum. The scum know who they are. They kill the Rb. We might catch a scum. There's still WIFOM. WHOOPS
Same problem with Jailkeeper.

OK, I'd like you to rewrite this so it makes any kind of sense.

What difference does that make if THE LYNCH MAJORITY HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED?

Obviously it hadn't been. Or SSK would have been lynched. I think you are lying about your ignorance.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I don't usually get this annoyed, but FUCK YOU. If you can't actually be bothered to read the thread, I've had it with you. Check the list of people voting SSK in BM's end of day post. Is farside on it? no. If she had been, he would have been lynched.

Patrick - Vanilla Townie, Smashed over the Head Day 4

With 6 of you remaining, 4 votes are still required for a lynch. You have 4 days and 2 hours till deadline.

BM

Four to lynch...

votecount at deadline:

Vote Count

MafiaSSK 3 (Elvis Knits, Forbiddanlight, TonyMontana)
Forbiddanlight 1 (The Fonz)

Not Voting: Farside22, MafiaSSK

I posted in thread after Farside did. If farside's vote counts, then SSK is definitely lynched, regardless of what I do. If farside's vote doesn't count for being too late, then obviously mine wouldn't either.

Prove it. I've stated why it is true.

You've come out with a load of words that barely form a coherent sentence, let alone a coherent idea about mafia.

[The Fonz]

What's a hypoclaim?

I'm pretty sure a hypoclaim is one everyone states who they "saved" as a doc. That way if their is a doc and that doc dies then the person he or she stated they saved will be known and the doc is not outed.

Close, but no cigar. Everyone states 'I either targetted X, or did nothing.'

They very definitely don't claim 'i blocked x' which is why forbiddanlight's argument doesn't make sense. Basically, if we knew that the kill was caused by a roleblocker, then it would definitely be wise to claim rather than risk dying with that info unclaimed. If we knew it's a doc, it's pretty much a wash. The value of the information is greater than that of keeping the power role alive as opposed to any other role.

@ Lawrence: Yes, that is what vanilla townies should do. However, to announce that they are doing so in advance defeats the entire object.

The fact that there is possibly a doc AND an RB does not work against the plan- it makes it harder for the scum to know who to shoot at, since they don't know which was the actual stopper. And if a couple days down the line, we find out somehow that there is definitely no doc, then we have an implicated scum, fairy godfather theories about drinking aside.

And I'm rather annoyed that FL believes i don't understand her argument, just because i think it's wrong.

[The Fonz]

@ Lawrence: Yes, that is what vanilla townies should do. However, to announce that they are doing so in advance defeats the entire object.

We can all agree that there shouldn't be more than three different targets in total or something. In that case, a vanilla could introduce a new target while there is only one, but will just repeat a target when there are already two different ones, and scum don't know if the doc claimed his target first or later. But again, only works with 1 doc or 1 RB or something

Works fine until the actual RB claims last...

The fact that there is possibly a doc AND an RB does not work against the plan- it makes it harder for the scum to know who to shoot at, since they don't know which was the actual stopper. And if a couple days down the line, we find out somehow that there is definitely no doc, then we have an implicated scum, fairy godfather theories about drinking aside.

You are assuming the doc and RB BOTH stopped the kill, but if they had different targets, only one of them stopped the kill, while they both think they stopped the kill, but the mafia would know who really stopped the kill in this case. So it does work against the plan, except when they had the same target, which I wouldn't assume very easily.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not assuming they both blocked the kill, i'm assuming the precise opposite. One or other did. The whole hypo thing comes about precisely because we want to have the possibility of info later, without the risk of outing both now.

If we knew there was no doctor, an RB should just claim and be done with it.

[The Fonz]

I'm so stupid. In my latest posts, I did not realize RB has to target the scum and doc the scumtarget in order to prevent a kill. So never mind what I said Fonz...

This. Or, of course, a jailkeeper target either.

Bit late, but what's a JFK?

It's an airport... ¬¬

Also, a dead president.

---

I've never heard of hypoclaim before. From what Litral says, it seems there is a downside -- narrowing down the possible docs or RB's, giving scum better chance of hitting them.

Yes. Basically, the scum know that there were only a handful of roles that could have blocked the kill. Only people claiming to have targetted the scum assigned to do the kill could be an RB who stopped the kill, and only those who claim to have targetted the intended victim could be a doc responsible for the NK.

I'm not a very good strategy person... is there a way around this, while still getting the info? It sounds like hypocop claim would be better and less dangerous. I would be up for that, possibly up for the whole hypoclaim.

Hypocop is

worse

and

more

dangerous, since it helps out a cop, which is the one role you really don't want killed, as opposed to a doc or RB, where finding one scum or clearing one innocent is worth as much or more than keeping the role alive.

The point of hypoing here, is that if we for sure knew the kill was stopped by an RB, the RB should claim. If it were stopped by a doc, the balance of advantage is probably arguable. But we can't know which it was. And obviously, if an RB claims and says 'well i blocked this player, that musta stopped the kill' and a doc claims 'well hang on, i protected this player' then we have two outed power roles and no firm leads to show.

There's also the side benefit that there may be a tracker/watcher/etc.

Btw, asking 'is there a safer way' is really pointless. No. If there were, someone would have suggested it. You can't reveal role info without at least some risk of outing the role.

@ Forbiddanlight: Has it not occurred to you that, if the kill failed because the scum killer was too drunk, then a hypo won't tell them anything?

[The Fonz]

Right. I suggest truly random order, anyone got a problem?

[The Fonz]

1 Elvis Knits
2 Litral
3 TonyMontana (Rep. Jenter Brolincani)
4 Forbiddanlight (Rep. Dahill1)
5 Lawrencelot
6 Farside22
7 The Fonz
8 MafiaSSK
9 Landlord

Original Roll String: 1d9

1 9-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

[The Fonz]

MafiaSSK to claim first.

[The Fonz]

It's a bit rich to deadline a game with an absent top suspect.

Mod: Has SSK been prodded?

I either targetted TM or no-one.