The Werewolves of Millers Hollow (Game Over)

[Firestarter]

Ok... apologies MOD, I was watching the topic below for start time... DOH..


http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11103

___________

Anyways, Im reading now and will post some thoughts shortly all.

[Firestarter]

The game so far is represented with quotes/thoughts/notes..

Xtoxm with a soft claim?
Win condition?

Also I'm probably not the best mayor candidate. I like to think I'm pro-town when I'm town but I've been wrong about who's scum alot of times. In fact, that's my meta as town.

This part of one of Jahudo's posts early on grabbed my attention.
Scared of the Mayor position? Why?
If one feels pro-town as town, its far easier than being pro-town as scum imo. Particluraly early doors.
Majority choices will be clearer, its harder for scum-mayor to choose a scum option and then try to get away with it. With all players still in the game, scum will find it harder to mis-lynch.

I'll

Unvote Xtomx for Lynch

(for now) and throw my vote on a lurker!

Vote Ztife for Lynch

.

Voting for a lurker 87 posts in?

Actually I think if X is scum and has partners, him being mayor is a bad idea even if he does die since he can select the next mayor.

This has been overlooked till now, but if Xtomx is scum and is lynched, what are the chances he'll choose a partner next?
Set-up for mis-lynch/various mis-lynches?

You think Xtoxm may be a vampire but still want to lynch him? And you wanted him to be mayor (as of this post)? I don't follow your logic. Plus, I don't like you saying that you have a "meta" of not finding scum. I have seen you play very well as town...granted its been in marathons but that is even a harder scenario for town. I have also seen you play very well as scum. Can you link some games where you sucked as town?

It seems to me you are setting yourself to take part in mislynches.

This is a response to the quoted post of Jahudo, above.
Bolded part seems plausible, but maybe too simplistic.
Jahudo then remarks...

It was mostly a joke because I put that as my "meta" on my wiki page for all to see and obey
I don't mean to say I suck as town (ok, I did suck in Mini 695 oddly enough). I guess let my involvement on wagons speak for themselves

and if you think a second vote is safe in my hands then so be it.

Percy states that BM being made Mayor simply for the amount of posts he makes/contribution to thread, which was one of BM's early reasons, is not indicative of alignment.
In games Ive played, Scum lay lower than Town. But the fact remains that Post Count does not constitute alignment one way or the other.

Who actually wants to be mayor? I think it would be helpful if we narrow it down to whoever wants the responsibility- having it thrust on someone who doesn't want it, because of a lack of confidence or a sensitive role for instance, would do more harm than good.

This post smells off to me. Purely because it seems rushed, where there is no rush.
At this stage, scum would not be in a hurry to claim Mayorship, they'd rather have it at a point whereby they can inflict more damage... later in the game.
This could be scum ensuring that a townie gets mayorship, and in doing so, painting themselves as a bigger target to lynch in the event of wrong decisions/bad calls, etc, etc.

I volunteer myself for mayor's position. Im more of a conservative/argumentative player, I use words more than I use votes to pressure players and stuff, so I won't be needing it much in the 1st place, instead, here's what I'll propose if im mayor..

I will only cast my vote (worth 2 as mayor) only when there is at least 1/4 of town (excluding myself) urging me to vote. The exception is that if the vote is a hammer, I will not do it. Instead for me to do a hammer vote I will need all the current voters for the target to urge me to do the hammer. Meaning every voter for the target has to agree to a hammer.

There are several benefits to this, its essentially giving people 2 levels of suspicion. If you are really suspicious of a person, you can urge me to use my vote INCLUDING YOUR OWN VOTE. If you are suspicious, but not too, you can choose not to use my vote. This will make people think twice before they spend their votes, and it will be harder for maf to try and abuse.. since townie pushes for them will look extremely scummy.

In addition I will also state which targets I will want to vote for should I have a normal vote and such as well, just like a normal game. I will essentially play a normal game except for this mayor vote which will be "used" by town basically.

After reading this post, I thought.. Hmmm, interesting idea.
After reading it once more, its easy for scum to use this plan effectively.
It seems to take out the "accountability" out of the mayor role using 2 votes.

This...

Also,

FoS: Percy

Seems a little too early to scum hunt issin't it?

Sorry, no can do... Scumhunting is a must, when you can, how you can.
Scumhunting is great at anytime.

Looks like an excuse to avoid contributing to me.

Looks like you need to get your eyes tested, then.

Conservative play to avoid making mistake s with unfamiliar game mechanics does not equal unwilligness to contribute.

DI indeed looks to be non-commital at this point, stating the game mechanic is the sole reason.
Bolded part could translate to,

"The less I say, the better"

The Fonz instantly replies with..

@ Izzy: 'Being cautious' and 'not wanting to make a mistake' are excuses the scum hides behind to avoid contributing, frequently. But then, i'm a player who equates 'cautious' and 'scummy.' Town should be aggressive.

Aggresive can be a good thing, at times and when needed.
But not all of the time. Fonz should know this from the last game we both played in.
A certain element of caution is also good at times (RE: Xtomxs' Claim), and when needed, but again, not all the time.

So far, up to post 146, Yosarian2 is not taking any of the other players thoughts on Xtomx's claim whatsoever.
In particular, the Miller role. Why is Yos trying so hard to convince everyone else they're wrong about this?

Urging the mayor to vote gives us another opportunity to look at the voting process with more reasoning and discussion, and more posts with content means the scums are more exposed. You think the scum would invoke the mayor's vote together? Obviously, if you have bandwagoned vote together on a player, THEN urge the mayor's vote together, you have severely put yourself on the suspicion panel just to gang vote a townie to death. There might be several disagreements, but the likelihood of this happening is about as much as the whole scum bandwagoning together on a townie.

Besides, this is just making the mayor a generic role. Anybody could play it this way.

I fail to see how it benefits scum more than town, since generating more discussions is always good.

And if scum bandwagon together and "mayor vote" together, they risk making themselves look like they are banding. Which also helps town identify them better. I could see how this mayor role benefits even if I am not the mayor, but somebody plays it this way.

Scum as mayor early in game is less of a benefit than scum being Mayor late in the game. Particularly if the scum-lynched so far is low.
The best stance on

this plan

as Mayor, is to NOT adopt it imo.

Well, I might be out of date, but I want to say something regarding the agressiveness. I think town should be more agressive than passive, however, it should not reach an extreme of agressiveness. I've seen some games where the mafia uses the agressiveness of some pro-town players to lead the lynches as they wish. The Fonz, I believe this is what happened in War of Heaven II, isn't it? But again, a passive stance won't help either. Some agressive is needed, but all attacks should come with good bases and not just for the sake of lynching, or for pure guts.

What happened in War In Heaven is we had the unique disadvantage that roflcopter, an obvtown player, was ripping the town apart by singlehandedly killing town players right and left, and there was nothing we could do to stop him but kill him, which we didn't want to do because he was a powerful obvtown role. That's more analogous to repeated misviggings. When I acted aggressively, and tried to lead the town, I got two players lynched, one of whom was scum. In fact, my biggest error in that game was too much going with the flow later on.

Fonz answers Shinnen on the previous game all 3 of us were involved in, War in Heaven II...
He says that he was not the leading aggressive townie, and this was true.
But the aggresion used early on was too much to contain late on in the game, and as a result, town lynched town after town after town. And The Fonz was one of the main contributers of Over-Aggression in that game. Over-aggression throughout a game is not good imo. Blame WILL be afforded to an over-aggressive townie, and a mis-lynch will more than likely ensue.

I think the risk of a scum mayor is overrated. At least, at this early stage. Whoever is mayor will be under particular pressure to scumhunt successfully. I don't see how it's possible a scum mayor could survive to endgame without some serious bussing- and if they want to bus, that's fine by me.

I agree with this statement. Scum Mayor, in my mind, should have a tougher time than Town Mayor.
At the very least, this should apply in the early lynches in this game.
Of course, Scum-Mayor late in game is a completely different kettle of fish.

I think we should elect a mayor based on everyone putting up 2 candidates. The player mentioned the most gets the position. Then we decide whether we should lynch Xtoxm or direct the vig to kill him (assuming we have a vig). If we really fear the possibility of a Jester role or a variant, then vigging is the best way to get rid of him. We can also make that a part of the election process, so that the vig knows he is acting in accordance with the wishes of the town. (Usually, I'm very much against a vig firing on Night 1 or 2 unless they have a *strong* suspicion of guilt.) If the majority think we should vig or leave him alone, we move on and start looking at other people to lynch. If the majority think we should test his claim, we lynch him and move to night.

So far, Shadow Knight has come across pro-town, and most rational.
The idea of choosing 2 names for Mayor seems like the best option, and should provide a true Town concensus.

On the Xtomx claim..
There have been alot of posts made about this, but until Xtomx comes back and answers the various questions posed, WIFOM will rule.
My thoughts on Xtomx are unclear, partly because of the differing PoV's of the other players.
Another reason is this is my first werewolf game, I simply do not have the authority to speak on this claim with confidence.
But from what Ive gathered so far, and if I can, Ill reserve judgement on which treatment of Xtomx is best.

************************************

Ok...

ELECT AS MAYOR: Shadow Knight or BattleMage.

Ill reserve judgement on Xtomx until I hear more from him.

[Firestarter]

I have a suggestion...

Instead of electing who we think is Pro-town to Mayorship, what about electing someone we think is Scum instead?
Maybe we can all elect 2 players, similar to the pro-town vote suggested.
Only in this alternative, we lynch either the 1st or 2nd highest player in the votings afterwards, while electing the other as Mayor.
Of course, a deadline would need to be imposed, as in the pro-town mayor vote.

Im just throwing this out there, and if I haven't made myself clear in my earlier megapost already as to why Im making this suggestion, Ill try again..

Basically, I think that a Scum-Mayor will find it difficult to mis-lynch, either through themselves, or through their partners building cases.

Especially at this stage where all players are alive.

The 2-votes will not be as advantageous to a scum-mayor now than in later game.

My main reasoning behind this is simple...
If we promote a pro-town player, who has been mass-voted to Mayorship, and they have a hard time in the lynches that occur in their tenure, then they are very likely to be targetted by both scum and townies alike, increasing the likelihood of another townie mislynch.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this please. Possible Pros & Cons.

[Firestarter]

Thank you for the feedback to my suggestion about electing scummy players instead of pro-town players.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this please. Possible Pros & Cons.

I'd like to address some of the feedback...

Nah, I don't think it would help, really- we'd end up with some massive WIFOM when it comes to scum electing their successor. It would put pressure on the person, we'd all be monitoring them, sure- but there is the danger of getting too focussed on one person based on day 1 (it's not too bad getting focussed on a person and then lynching them, I don't think- but putting the spotlight on someone and then keeping them in the game could skew it).
We could just resolve to challenge any scummy behaviour from mayor or not, rather than keeping the focus on one.

Mike, from what I can read, your basing your argument against my suggestion on the fact that Town

DO

indeed choose a scum player and is lynched.
I think your argument against this is weak, and although Im not clear on this, and I will invoke the Mod to answer a question after I write the next line, cannot Town instruct the outgoing Mayor to choose the next?
This could be made doable by insisting whoever is made Mayor be required to do Towns will when/if they are lynched.
If so, then all WIFOM on this is struck out, and the newly installed mayor will only suffer from past posts whether scummy/townie/links, etc, etc.

MOD: Could you confirm to us if the outgoing/lynched Mayor privately informs you of his/her choice, or if its done in thread? I could not see this in your first few posts.

Any scum as mayor is definitely hurting more than having townie as mayor comparatively. Regardless of plans.
By having my suggestion scum will need to have reasons when they cast their self vote, and have reasons when they invoke mayor vote. Although the idea doesn't seem too popular anyway.

Why do you consider a Scum-Mayor more hurtful at this stage of the game?
Their influence is negated by the sheer numbers of players in the game right now, double-vote or not.
Not only that, but the general public at this moment, majority being town, will most likely spot any incosistencies with a dodgy mayor.
If we do indeed manage to elect a scum-mayor through the early lynches, we effectively take out their influence as scum, they will need to act as pro-town as possible to succeed.

Yeah; Firestarters "let's try to give a scum a double vote" plan is just a terrible idea.

Thank you Yos... But did you miss the part where I asked for Pro's & Cons?
I would like to hear from you regarding this, in your own words, and with a little more detailed critique.

A scum mayor would just be a bad idea and disadvantage the town the whole time they are in office even when they choose the successor as, like Mike said, it would just create a mass amount of unnecessary WIFOM discussions. Did they pick that person because they wanted them to appear scummy but are actually town and so on.

knox, I believe I addressed this quote in reply to Mikes feedback.
In it, you've just parroted what Mike said.

@ Firestarter: I share the idea that I would like to see potential scum as mayor. The mayor will be held more accountable than other players. Scum mayor will either have to bus their partners for self preservation,

or have their voting patterns traced looking for inconsistancies when a mislynch occurs.

DP, the bolded part of your quote...
This will also happen if a Townie is elected, and is part of a mislynch.
But the part about bussing and self preservation is something Ive thought about, as well as distancing.

In the short term, double-vote is pretty much useless. What we need is to get it into the hands of the town later on- and the best way to do that is to get it into a townie's hands and keep it there, I think.

Having a scum-mayor would create problems later on, in my opinion. And like I said- if you're so sure you can elect a scum-mayor, why not elect them for the lynch

- rather than force them to lurk (whether actually scum or not) by putting them in the spotlight over a period of days?

Yes, double-vote is pretty much useless, the question at this early part of the game is...

Who's hands would we prefer it in?
Who will have the least benefit from it?
Who will benefit more from it in the later part of this game?

The answers here should be easy to come up with, hence my suggestion and if you read in Mikes quoted post above, he already has the answers to them.... BUT, is against my suggestion?
As for the bolded part...
I originally stated that we should vote the top 2 on each players scum list.
One of them gets Mayorship, the other gets lynched/interrogated/pressurised.

[Firestarter]

I REALLY don't like scumMayordom, especially since a scummy person contributing to a mislynch might very well be town.

And what of a Townie looking player contributing to a mislynch turning out to be scum?
It happens...

Its more Wifom, and its not needed.

In my last post, Ive asked the Mod whether the outgoing/lynched Mayor needs to privately or publicly post who is the successor to him/her.

If its public, Town can effectively control who is next for Mayorship.
This, in turn, takes away any WIFOM, and the next elected Mayor only has past posts/links for anyone to be suspicious of.

If this option of electing Mayor is to be used, then the incoming Mayor must agree to to Towns will, and choose the next voted player in as Mayor.
Of course, any deviation from this by the outgoing Mayor has consequences.

[Firestarter]

If we elect a townie who's acting scummy or erratic, we'll effectively have killed two townies if the scummy mayor makes even a minor slip with regards to a lynch or another player. It's pretty much a flip of the coin.

I dont agree...

If we elect a player who's scummy or erratic prior to Mayorship being handed over, that same player will only be lynched if the scumminess/erratic behaviour continues.
Why would we want to lynch a Pro-town player?

[Firestarter]

If we elect a player who's scummy or erratic prior to Mayorship being handed over, that same player will only be lynched if the scumminess/erratic behaviour continues.
Why would we want to lynch a Pro-town player?

...Which is why Im baffled as to why we are electing someone Pro-town...
Townies make bad calls, and a Townie Mayor is not immune to this.
1 or 2 bad calls/mis-lynches, and the concensus will be that the pro-town player needs to be relieved of their position... i.e, lynched.

Hence my "For" electing someone scummy into Mayordom.

UNVOTE for MAYOR

[Firestarter]

It's WIFOM, Fire. That's what bothers me. For example, many think that I have an anti-town playstyle. If by your theory, you make me mayor because of it, and I mistakenly contribute to a subsequent mislynch, I would be under more suspicion than any of the other players on the wagon. Not to mention that mayorizing the scummiest player makes them act more protown and makes it harder for us to decide whether he's scum trying to fit in with his new role or just a wishy washy confused townie. Overall, I think we should just do the normal mayor electing method of pro-towniness.

Zwet, if you are elected as Mayor, it'll be because enough people think your scummy enough, by my method.

If you continue to be anti-town in the Mayor role, then you will likely be lynched.

About your point about scum being as pro-town as possible after being elected....
Doesn't this negate their influence as scum?

Ive already talked about WIFOM with my method.. it will be majorly diluted if we can get Town to nominate the successor through the outgoing Mayor.

[Firestarter]

But if we have a more suspicious mayor, it'll be much easier for either the scum to manipulate the town into lynching him earlier, or it'll be much easier for the scumbuddies to bus him and gain townpoints.

For scum to manipulate Town in this stage of the game, no-one dead yet, all Townies alive, I think it'd be vastly more noticeable now than later in the game.

I'd much rather have a manipulative scummy player now as Mayor, than later in the game.

This is the crux of my suggestion.

BTW, for everyone else...

Has this method been used before in a Kingmaker type set-up?
The "Vote scummy players in as King/Mayor first" method...
I'd like to see how it panned out if it was.

[Firestarter]

The way I'd understood it is that the mayor chooses their successor as they die, like in their will or something. If how I'd assumed it is true, it would lead to unnecessary WIFOM. We'd be suspicious if the scum differed from our choice, we'd equally be suspicious if they agreed with our choice.

If the outgoing Mayor chose someone else, I'd call it highly suspicious if they then flipped scum. But then again, we'd have just lynched a scumbag.

Winner everday.

If the outgoing Mayor chose someone else and then flipped Town, it would not be suspicous. It may be classed as anti-town to against Town wishes, but that would be it.

[Firestarter]

The mayor won't be the one manipulating, it'll be his scumbuddies or just plain simple opportunistic scum. A scum mayor makes easier for scum to coordinate mislynches once the mistakenly assumed scum mayor contributes to a mislynch, and makes it easier for the mayor's scumbuddies gain townpoints once they bus him to death. It's a win-win for the scum.

I agree that the mayor possibly wont be manipulating, although it is not something that can be ruled out.
But what your saying is that the minority of scum would have to convince town to recieve a majority to lynch.
And even then, that minority would be going out on a limb to do this if ALL were pushing.

There are 21 players in game, what do you think the set-up consists of zwet?

[Firestarter]

Then what if a town mayor accidentally chooses scum? Then the scum has a free pass for a while.

This Ive addressed already...

A scum Mayor, in order to succeed will need to act Pro-town.
Thus negating their influence as scum.
There is no need to lynch a Pro-Town player until/if they deviate to a scummy player.
Ultimately, the choice of who gets lynched is determined through votes, and this early in the game, most of those votes will come from Town.
The Mayor, as I see it, will need to do Towns will, so if the Mayor is hesitant or otherwise, an alert Town should spot it.

In any case, A scum player can also be chosen by accident in any other process we ultimately use to elect a Mayor.

[Firestarter]

I have no idea what the setup is, but I'm saying that the scum would have an

easier

time doing what they have to do anyway to win: coordinate mislynches and possibly bus their partners.

So, if we elect a Townie as Mayor, all scum can then influence the Mayors decision.

If we manage to elect a scumbag as Mayor, their influence is very little.
Particularly at this stage of the game.

I dont see why you think that scum will have it easier if "one of their own" is elected Mayor...
They'd be effectively 1 man light.

[Firestarter]

But that doesn't address the benefits gained by the scum mayor's buddies.

What benefits?

If anything, it'll be harder for scum to influence if a scum-mayor is elected when all players remain alive.

[Firestarter]

Nope. If one of their own is elected mayor, then they can gain townie points by bussing them. The bussing would be more effective, and harder to confirm as bussing, because of the pedestal placed underneath the mayor. A mayor coordinating a mislynch is, as you said, worse than a townie coordinating a mislynch, so it would be easier for the scum to call their buddy out on the mislynches and effectively bus him WITHOUT the town saying anything (of course, because of the inevitable WIFOM that would ensue when the whole town is mad at the mayor for the mislynch).

Your missing the point, there would be no pedestal placed under the Mayor, as they would be elected through scumminess not pro-townieness.

[Firestarter]

That is exactly my point, Fire. It's easier to find suspicion in a mayor elected through scumminess than through a mayor elected through towniness.

Nope.. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Suspicion will be rasied through scumplay/hesitancy/non-conforming to Town will, etc, etc.

[Firestarter]

But the scum mayor will have a precedent of scumminess that anyone can take advantage of.

Can other people comment about this please? I'm unused to posting more than one liners...

So you think that town players will take advantage of this??
I dont think so, Town scumhunt, and find

reasons

to lynch,

not

advantages.

That is reserved for scum in my book.

[Firestarter]

The feedback and questions so far have instilled in me further that we should go with electing a scummy player as Mayor.

If the scum player goes all "pro-town", then thats one influence diminished.
If not, then scumminess will be all the more noticeable.

And if we manage to elect a scumbag as mayor, we can then go on a quest to look for others.

If anyone has other concerns about my method, please post.

But again, if this method has been used in any other Kingmaker/Mayor games, I'd love to have a link to see how successful/disatrous it was

[Firestarter]

But the town's scumhunting will be biased against the scummy mayor.

How?
Town cannot be certain that the elected scummy player-cum-mayor is in fact, scum.

They are placed there on merit of scummy-ness prior, and as Ive stated, repeatedly, if the scumminess continued then lynching the Mayor would be a valid option.

I would prefer if you followed your questions up with details as to

WHY

your asking them, and

WHAT

your particular concerns are Zwet..

[Firestarter]

*facepalm* I'll rest my case as it is and see what people think.

Whats the facepalm for??

Please explain.

Ive answered all your questions, many repeated, yet you *facepalm*...

*Facepalm*

[Firestarter]

1)If the scummy mayor is in fact a town player, the scum only need to wait for a couple of mislynches to be able to manipulate the town into lynching the mayor.

2)If the scummy mayor is scum, the scum only need to wait for a couple of mislynches to be able to effectively bus the mayor without much town disapproval. Yes, this kills scum, but also makes the bussing scum appear more pro-town.

3)The mayor has a harder time scumhunting, as the town is more inclined to take the opinions of a scum-elected mayor with a grain of salt.

4)The town is more inclined to look for scumtells in the scum-elected mayor than otherwise.

All of these "concerns" have been repeatedly answered in my various posts.

[Firestarter]

1.

If a scum knows what he's doing, if he knows when to distance, when to bus, and when to lynch a townie, then giving him more power to do so only makes him more dangerous.

2.

Or, to put it another way; tommorow, if there's 10 people alive, it would normally be 6 votes to lynch. If there are 3 scum alive, then you still need at least 3 townies on the wagon to lynch. HOWEVER, if one of those scum is a double-voter, then they can push a bad lynch with only 2 townies on their side; or, conversely, they can get a mislynch while less scum need to actually be on the wagon, which makes it harder to find the scum.

3.

And it only gets worse later in the game.

1.

The Power is not the Mayors, its Towns. The Mayor simply has a double vote which is pretty useless at this stage of the game.

2.

The fact is there's 21 people alive, not 10. which makes it alot

HARDER

for scum to do what your saying.

3.

Exactly. If scum gain control of Mayorship late in the game, then that is disastrous.

[Firestarter]

Just to be clear, giving more power to people you believe to be scum is NOT a good townie plan. Nor is it wise for the town to waste it's time arguing about how much we should help the mafia.

Unvote
Vote Firestarter for lynch

Have you bothered to read anything Ive posted over the last few pages Dingo?

[Firestarter]

Have you bothered to read anything Ive posted over the last few pages Dingo?

I have indeed, and it is, in my opinion, a load of WIFOM justification for giving a scummy player more power.

No.. wrong.

What it does is give control to town over a player whome they see as scummy, while scumhunting for another.
If said scummy player does not conform to Towns will, said scummy player becomes more scummy, and gets lynched.
If said scummy player becomes pro-town, it means he/she is conforming to towns will and a lynching of someone else can occur, i.e., directing their double vote at Towns voted-in as lynch of the day.
If the Mayor is scum, they will eventually out themselves one way or another, through their own actions or those of others, i.e, lynched scumbags through bussing/distancing, etc, etc.

The fact is that WIFOM will occur no matter who is the Mayor through whichever method is used.
I think that controlling a scummy player is better than placing a Pro-town player in the Mayors position.

[Firestarter]

IT GIVES THE SCUM MORE POWER. If you claim you addressed all my points, I don't see it. Please explain why my concerns are unfounded or false.

Now, now, Zwet...

I never claimed your concerns were unfounded or false.
I addressed them in my various posts.
If you need clarification, please go back and read.
If you are unclear as to anything, please restate your concern, and Ill try to answer it more effectively.
However, my plan is not foolproof, no-ones is.
Im merely looking at this Mayor election from a different angle.

Theres no need to bold that first line Zwet, your trying too hard at this stage. People will read it, dont worry.

[Firestarter]

I think that controlling a scummy player is better than placing a Pro-town player in the Mayors position with all players still alive.

To the last 3 posters..
Zwet, Dingo & D.I.

Do you understand the quote above?
Do you understand my thinking behind it?

[Firestarter]

The most you can possibly make my concerns into is plain and simple WIFOM. Disregarding that WIFOM as "not foolproof" is very scummy to me.

WIFOM will occur no matter who is Mayor, whichever method is chosen.
And how have I disregarded WIFOM?

The main concern Ive seen in this thread so far regarding WIFOM stemmed from who was going to succeed a lynched Mayor.
Im waiting for the Mod to get back with an answer to my question about how the next Mayor will be elected, through Private or Public channels.

If its public, Town can effectively choose who's next, and enforce the outgoing Mayor to choose this person.
Especially in this early stage, the choice most likely will be a town choice.
Any WIFOM from the outgoing Mayor is then wiped out.
And if there are still suspicions on the incoming Mayor, they will be at the very most, driven from past posts, etc, etc.

Must I keep repeating this over and over again?

[Firestarter]

Dingo, please answer my 2 questions...

BTW, for your info, right now, the day will NOT end until a Mayor is elected, and a player is lynched.
I dont see a deadline, so enough with the "wasting time" crap please.

[Firestarter]

I think that controlling a scummy player is better than placing a Pro-town player in the Mayors position with all players still alive.

To the last 3 posters..
Zwet, Dingo & D.I.

Do you understand the quote above?
Do you understand my thinking behind it?

?

[Firestarter]

Dingo, please answer my 2 questions...

BTW, for your info, right now, the day will NOT end until a Mayor is elected, and a player is lynched.
I dont see a deadline, so enough with the "wasting time" crap please.

Yes to both questions. Your reasoning is wrong, as been explained many times. And if we are not wasting time, we are at least distracting the town.

So why the Lynch vote?

[Firestarter]

Hm... Firestarter seems abnormally dense today.

Unvote: Vote for Lynch: Firestarter

As opposed to.. ?

All Im hearing is WIFOM from both of you, and that scum will get extra power... however useless it is right now.

But.. cannot the same thing happen voting in a player who seems pro-town?

If my method is not to be used, thats ok.
You asked questions, and I answered them.
Giving this "supposed" power to someone seeming scummy will draw some heat, I fully expected that.
But your WIFOM arguments are nothing but mere... WIFOM.
Voting me to lynch is a an easy thing to do, and too simplistic.
You both do not understand where Im coming from, thats fine.
If the rest of Town see the same picture, thats also fine.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby

Enough info for me.
Nice coat-tailing Zwet...

[Firestarter]

@ Yos..

Thank you, its the first real post that has countered my method.

Im fully aware of what may happen when and if scum get control of Mayorship.
Im also more inclined to believe that more townies will be lynched if we opt to elect them to Mayorship. This is of course, assuming they are Town.

Im thinking out loud now..

Mayorship is elected by who is most Pro-Town.

Mayor 1 gets elected, and a player is targetted for lynch.
Town mis-lynches, and another Townie gets NK'd.
Mayor 1 is kept on, as the general concensus is he did not play a huge part on the 1st mis-lynch.
2nd day lynch is also a mis-lynch.
2nd NK'd townie dies.
Mayor 1 gets the bullet, as he fucked up too many times. This can be pressured into by scum and town alike.
Next Mayor is elected, and a scumbag is given Mayorship.
At this stage, its 5 townies lynched, with 16 players alive and 9 to lynch.
Im thinking there may be 5/6 scumbags in the set-up at this time.
Now all scum need to mislynch is 3/4 townies on board.
Mislynch occurs, and another townie is NK'd.

Of course, things might happen differently, but this is the worst case scenario that was in my head after I voted 2 players as the most pro-town yesterday in my mega-post.

I wanted to take a look at a different angle in electing Mayorship, and hence came up with my alternate method of choosing the scummiest player. The rest is history.

As I stated in an earlier post, this is my 1st werewolf game and the set-up is not something Im used to.

I dont class it as crazy or stupid...
So far, no-one has shown me this method being used elsewhere in these type games.
Maybe its because no-one had the balls to suggest it as they may come off sounding scummy. I think thats bollox tbh.

Scum reading my plan will see this differently I imagine, and Im pretty sure at least one of the detractors of this method is scum.

Scum will want townies to have the Mayor role first, because if they are part of a mislynch or 2, then they can easily rally to discredit the Pro-town player that was elected in the first place, ably assisted by pissed off townies.

Think about it, scum want the mayor role as late as possible.
I think its highly unlikely that scum want the Mayor role this early.

And they wouldn't mind several mis-lynches along the way to make it easier for them.
Lynching townies, then replacing them increases the chances of scum getting Mayorship late in the game.

[Firestarter]

I understand your argument. Your argument is wrong. I expect scum to make understandable, incorrect, arguments.

Its not an argument...

Its a method of choosing who to elect as scum.
It was turned into something other than that when others totally ignored my points, ignored what I'd written beforehand, and ignored my questions.

[Firestarter]

Maybe the reason no one does this is because it does not make sense to do it.

By "argument", I don't mean "fight". I mean "a series of statements which lead logically to a conclusion". Your "argument" is flawed in ways I personally think are obvious.

Maybe, but if it hasn't been tested before.. you know how it goes..

I know what you meant by argument, but a better word would be debate.

In fairness, I'd like to hear the rest of the players thoughts regarding this.
And its the obvious nature I want to get away from with the method I proposed..

[Firestarter]

Explain how these consequences work. So an NKed mayor chooses a new mayor against the will of the town. How are you going to hurt him? He's already dead town. Why would you hurt the new mayor, when he's got nowt to do with the decision?

In the instance in your quote, Town should not hurt the incoming Mayor based on the outgoing lynched townies deviation from towns will.
But if the outgoing Mayor chooses someone else, that in itself will be more info based on the flip.

A town flip will more than likely make the deviation.. an "in the interest of town" based choice, and the incoming Mayor should only be answerable to past posts, cases built on them prior to being elected. Ive stated this several times in my previous posts.

The consequences part comes into play if the outgoing Mayor's flip is scum and deviates from towns will in choosing the incoming Mayor.

On one hand, we'll have the WIFOM such an action will create...
But on the other hand, We'll have lynched scum...

[Firestarter]

If we elect a scum mayor, he will be bussed, and this will be bad because his scumbuddies will be basically confirmed.

I understand that this can happen.

Why do you think it wont happen if we elect a Pro-town player that just so happens to be scum?

Its unfair to say this can only happen with the method I proposed only.

[Firestarter]

But it's less likely to happen until later in the game, as the town won't be as inclined to attack a pro-town mayor than a scum mayor. Yes, his partners can bus, but the town will kill the partners, and once they find out that both of them were scum, we'll have a confirmed bussing case and kill the mayor and win the game! Yay!

So installing a pro-town player as Mayor gives him a free pass???
WTF.
If the said pro-town player, being pro-townish prior to being elected, starts being scummy in their reign, they are less inclined to being attacked?

I dont think so..
Mayorship or not, scummy play/being anti-town deserves to be attacked.

[Firestarter]

But it's less likely to happen until later in the game, as the town won't be as inclined to attack a pro-town mayor than a scum mayor. Yes, his partners can bus, but the town will kill the partners, and once they find out that both of them were scum, we'll have a confirmed bussing case and kill the mayor and win the game! Yay!

My method for electing scum is most potent the earlier its adopted.
The simple reason is the number of players in the game.
It will be much harder for scum to contrive a mislynch if one of their own is holding Mayorship, Im convinced of this.

But now you seem to be agreeing with me with this last post.

You've argued about bussing etc, etc, with my method, and Ive stated that it will more than likely happen later in the game if scum get into "office".
Now you say the same thing???

I urge you to read this method again, read all of the posts Ive made in relation to this, and take some notes.

You keep threading on old ground, concerns/questions that have already been answered.
You seem to be trying your best to put obstacles in the way of this method.
Im all for valid concerns being raised, and some have brought such up.
You however, are stalling, trying to discredit it at any opportunity.

You seem to be parroting what others are saying, and not actually reading whats been written.

UNVOTE FOR LYNCH
VOTE FOR LYNCH: zwetschenwasser

I think you are a much better candidate for lynching.

[Firestarter]

Firestarter: If we can please get away from theory discussion for a bit, I'd still like you to answer this question.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby
Enough info for me.

Why?

Originally, because you pissed me off....
It seemed certain players were refusing to see my angle, and not actually trying to help it along.

In fairness, there may have been OMGUS present in my vote for you.
But I tried hard to make this method as transparent as possible, and I came up against a brick wall.
However, with zwet's recent posts, Ive retracted that vote now.

[Firestarter]

EBWOP..

@ Yos...

Replace you with Dingo in my last post.

[Firestarter]

@Firestsarter: Let's say we elect a scummy mayor, who turns out to be actual scum. They participate in a bad lynch, we haul them over the coals for it, and lynch them. They choose a successor.... and we expect them to choose someone scummy as well?
Another note: what's to stop this mayor from playing ultra-conservatively, earning heaps of townie points for being a good mayor, and coasting along to the endgame when their position may have a disastrous effect on the game?
Ultimately I think your proposal is interesting, wrong, but not scummy.

@Percy..

Good question, a valid concern and one that I haven't seen brought up already.
If this method was chosen, we'd need to adapt a policy lynch later in game (not too much later in game, mind) to ensure the elected Mayor was not scum.
The only way the Scum-Mayor would succeed as you say, would be through the lynching of scum and not necessarily "just" going along with Towns will.
If it included the lynching of scum, all well and good.
But the elected Mayor

would

have to be lynched as assurance.

************

Although Ive brought this method to the table, I can see that it will not be used to elect Mayorship.
Im happy to go with the method originally chosen..
However, I may try to ressurect this idea in a future game of this type, I'd like to see how it would pan out, anyways...

************

VOTE FOR MAYOR: The Fonz & Battlemage.

Ok, on the Xtoxm debate..
I wanted to see what else he'd post since I last posted my thoughts on him, and I think he's made 1 post of nothingness.
Basically, he wants to be lynched.. Why?
Lots of theories from alot of players, but ultimately, his actions are anti-town.

At any rate, I think the Mods post from page 3, post No. 2 is important in what we decide is the best course of action.

In this game, each day after the first will have a random event drawn from a deck of events I have created. Who knows what will happen? A global post restriction for that day? A new way to lynch people? People being temporarily removed from the game? Or something else entirely?

Nobody knows. Not even me. Well, I know the possibilities, but that's it.

Xtoxm may have a role that no-one has suggested yet, or his lynch is linked to the "random events" that will take place every 2nd day somehow...

If he's town, he may have some sort of descriptive text regards posting/win condition, etc, etc.. Hence his lack of input.
He clearly, imo, wants to be lynched...

Is there any other possibilites regarding his role?

[Firestarter]

Uh..

MOD: I am voting for a Mayor
&
Could you answer my question I posted earlier on...
Can you confirm if the outgoing Mayor is required to post their successor in thread or by PM please?

[Firestarter]

At this point, I do at least want to hear from a replacement before we make any decision regarding the lynch.

I too want to hear what the replacement has to say before a possible lynching.

[Firestarter]

If lynching me would have killed me i'd have just self hammered. The role I have means it is not unfair on the replacement.

If he didn't give a damn, why say this?

With Millar replacing in, as with any replacement, they will not want to get lynched as soon as they step in the door.

With Xtoxm's last post, and ultimately the claim, millar is still a viable lynch.
I mean, will it reach a stage if he's left alive, that we need to lynch him to prove he's telling the truth anyway?

[Firestarter]

The Cobbler, "Village Idiot", or Jester has the objective of convincing the town to kill him, or is required to vote in favor of all proposed lynchings.

[Firestarter]

Found that on the wiki site....

So if he is as he says he is, what next?

[Firestarter]

Unelect, Elect: Yos for Mayor.

My choices for Mayor wont be elected, Fonz or BM, so Ill go with the majority.

[Firestarter]

Responding to prod?

Will post later on.

[Firestarter]

For all we know, M13, if he has a win condition, has probably been met.
In a post I made earlier, I found that one of the conditions is convincing town to lynch a village idiot...

In any case, alignment is unknown. So ignoring him may be the best idea.

_____________________

I'm not believing that one haha so reviewing day one the most likely person to lynch is Battle Mage for his contribution is so great that he needs to be lynched on the simple matter that he has a good con voyage.

Mufasa, you explained the typo, but you did not explain why BM should be lynched. Explain

FoS: Mufasa

[Firestarter]

Percy leaving a vote on a lurker as a tactic to get someone to contribute more...
I think this is a fair strategy, until someone scummier comes along, or the votee comes across as townish when they do start playing properly. Also, as long as Percy is actively participating in the game, I would not consider it a huge thing, to use this method as a tactic.

I also see Dingo's concern in someone pledging their vote until the other player plays "excellently". In this case, "Excellent scumhunting" being the operative term.
However, in order for "Excellent scumhunting" to happen, the said lurker would need to possibly lead the lynching, or contribute vastly to the lynching of at least 1 scumbag, in the next phase of their posting at the very least. Ok, that might be over doing it, but the expectation level would be too high using the above phrase.

But votes apply pressure one way or the other, speaking of which....

UNVOTE: VOTE: Musafa...

So now your saying you dont know why you said you were looking at a BM lynch.
You stated...

"But I didn't find him to be the best thing since slice bread looking back on day 1 and am glad he isnt mayor."

Again, your reasoning to this is required

[Firestarter]

Firestarter I said I dont know to why I originally thought BM looked so pro Town day one not what I said afterwards

Ok?... But this...

I'm not believing that one haha so reviewing day one

the most likely person to lynch is Battle Mage for his contribution is so great that he needs to be lynched on the simple matter that he has a good con voyage.

Ill ask again, what distinguishes BM from the other Mayor candidates you lined up, Fonz & Yos, for lynching today?

How does someone go from being "So pro-town" and being one of your candidates for Mayor in D1, to being the lynch for D2?

[Firestarter]

EBWOP..

My bad guys the con voyage i meant to put conveying but my spell check came up wrong

Also, can you clear this up, I still do not understand what you were trying to "convey."

[Firestarter]

RE: millar...

Right now, he's more likely a stumped townie.
The colouring, and him effectively being removed from the game brings me to this conclusion. However, doubts are not erased yet..
It was Millar13 who pointed out the colouring of his name, which isn't entirely suspicious, Im just saying.
Also, the Mod did say...

"In this game, each day after the first will have a random event drawn from a deck of events I have created. Who knows what will happen? A global post restriction for that day? A new way to lynch people? People being temporarily removed from the game?

Or something else entirely?

"

Should we rule out the chance that Millar13 could be back in the game as the rest of us are at some stage? I think we can, its maybe a case of crossing that bridge if we need to.
I dunno, but at the moment, stumped townie-ish.

[Firestarter]

@ Barrylocke...

Your thoughts on Mufasa please...

[Firestarter]

I also agree that Mufasa is scummy. If he can not provide a good defense for himself, I am willing to change my vote. However, I also expect Zwet to step up

and stop casting random accusations

if he wants me to consider him town.

This is strange. Do you think my goal in this game is to convince you that I'm town? I'm playing to win, not playing to give you a townie read.

You preferred to ignore the bolded part...
And your comment has set off an alarm in my head.

FOS:

zwetschenwasser

[Firestarter]

I don't find mufasa scummy at all.

Can you point to what others have said about Mufasa, why they have votes on him, that you do not see as scummy.
You say you dont find him scummy at all... what do you read him as.. neutral, pro=town?

[Firestarter]

It was an honest mistake on Muf's part.

Im sure, now that Mufasa is back full time, he can answer his own questions...

[Firestarter]

Re; Dingo & Percy..
I think its plain to see that Dingo wasn't asking Percy to remove his vote.
He questioned the statement that Percy made about leaving it there until some "excellent scumhunting" has occured. That was the problem imo.

And there it is again. I have not once asked Percy to change his vote. I am done giving your the benifit of the doubt. I'm done using polite language.
You are lying. Period. Could your mistatement been accidental the first time? Sure. But after being corrected over and over? No. You are lying.

There's an element of truth to this, RE: misrepping Dingo.
Its not like we've NOT been down this road once or twice before..

FoS:

Percy

************************************************************************************

Re: Mufasa..

Mufasa, you explained the typo, but you did not explain why BM should be lynched. Explain

FoS: Mufasa

UNVOTE: VOTE: Musafa...

So now your saying you dont know why you said you were looking at a BM lynch.
You stated...

"But I didn't find him to be the best thing since slice bread looking back on day 1 and am glad he isnt mayor."

Again, your reasoning to this is required

Ill ask again, what distinguishes BM from the other Mayor candidates you lined up, Fonz & Yos, for lynching today?
How does someone go from being "So pro-town" and being one of your candidates for Mayor in D1, to being the lynch for D2?

EBWOP..

My bad guys the con voyage i meant to put conveying but my spell check came up wrong

Also, can you clear this up, I still do not understand what you were trying to "convey."

...and now this...

@ Percy i would stop defending my self and give my opinions but it seems like certain people are persistent on old news and don't give a shake.

Don't you have enough to worry about Mufasa?
Like answering questions, or the increasing number of votes on you?
You keep ignoring the questions I and others have asked.... Yet you find time to post about other players??!!

[Firestarter]

Guys, I haven't been at my PC since yesterday.

If there's anything outstanding, I wont be able to answer/post thoughts until tomorrow.

[Firestarter]

V/LA till Sunday guys.

[Firestarter]

Mod

Ill be V/LA for the next week.

[Firestarter]

Hi, will post tomorrow guys, long working week et al...

[Firestarter]

Guys, apologies for not getting a post down in the last few days, after a heavy week of work, Ive a backlog to get through, and cannot find the time to give thoughts in any of the games Im in at present.

Come the weekend however, Im free, and I promise to offer input to this game..

[Firestarter]

Work commitments are too much for me at present...

MOD:

Apologies, but I need replacing.