Dynamite Stick Mafia! GAME OVER

[Adel]

players who are alit = more likely than average to be scum imo

I wouldn't mind seeing ooba off PEG or Surye...

I have half of a mind to immolate myself and Surye pronto.

~~~

Assuming I am alive tomorrow,

I will kill myself and the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

After carfeul consideration, I think that is the only way to stop this reckless anti-town behavior. Sometimes it is best to fight fire with fire.

~~~

DGB's death makes me much more suspicious of newer players than normal.

[Adel]

btw, I ffully endorse the idea of voting and having the #1 votee off the #2 votee or via versa.... it is the best path to a town win.

[Adel]

@Marmalade: are you an alt? how long have you been reading games here?
When did you read Bad Idea II?

[Adel]

Only scum purpose would be to blend in to be considered protown.

exactly. keeping that in mind reread ooba and Surye's posts.

if your bullshit detector doesn't go offf you may need to get it serviced.

[Adel]

i'd rather not dynamite anyone seeing as i'm town ..

vote: ooba

[Adel]

Someone, anyone, talk me out of dynamiting him this second.

no.

[Adel]

I suspect that LML may be bluffing.

I now endorse ooba blowing up LML or surye

[Adel]

Assuming I am alive tomorrow,

I will kill myself and the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

If I am not alive tomorrow, I think that quagmire should kill the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

As LML just demonstrated, intelligence and the ability to communicate effectively do not effectively hedge against the town's tendency to self-destruct. At the very least LML should have stalled so we could get more information from this day before we lose another to a NK.

[Adel]

ok, I think I've come up with a method that will win the game for us. It requires strict adherence to the following rules:

1: no one strikes a light until there are two wagon with >66% of living players between them. Everyone votes as per normal, and every 25 posts or so someone posts an "unofficial" votecount to keep track.
2: Once >66% of living players are voting for one of two players, one of those players strikes a light and kills the other. If both the #1 and the #2 player refuse to do this (should only happen if both are scum) a volunteer will kill one and then another volunteer will kill the other.
3: One player will act as the "enforcer" killing any player who strikes a light prematurely. Each enforcer names her own replacement. I've volunteered to be the first enforcer, and I name Quagmire to be my replacement once I am dead. I choose quagmire because I felt he was pro-town but would be a distraction to the town. I suggest future enforcers follow my example. If the designated enforcer fails to do her duty, she should quickly be wagoned and killed under rule 2.

Why this will work: late game success often depends upon analysis of voting patterns. In my experience, from games I've read and played in, it is common for a scum player to be considered the second most scummy player whenever a townie is lynched. By killing both, the scum (when they are not bussing) will have to avoid voting for each other far more often than normal. In the late game phase it should become rather obvious who they are. If they do not avoid voting for each other the random walk of wagon should net them in the meantime.

Why you should trust me: either I will be night killed tonight, or someone will test me by striking a light without consensus tomorrow. Either way my alignment will be reveal soon enough. Also, my analysis should stand up to the scrutiny of other players. Beware, scum players may attempt to derail my plan either by nitpicking it or trying to confuse the issue. Since I am explicitly laying my life on the line for this, I think I should get the benifit of the doubt.

Warning to scum: this is the only part of mafia I am actually good at: abstract game analysis. If I am correct in my analysis (and I am quite confident of this) you will be hard-pressed to counter it. Feel free to try though

[Adel]

two votes allows scum players to advance multiple wagons, and hide their relationship with each other by voting each other with less fear of that vote leading to a death of a scummate.

I strongly advocate 1 vote per person. 2 votes is more total information, but at the cost of allowing much more noise.

[Adel]

fwiw

VOTE 1: MARMALADE
VOTE 2: Surye

using this post as an

example

. if PEG were scum with Surye, he could push the Marmalade wagon and not hinder the wagon of a third player... allowing that third player and Marmalade to be the #1 and #2. Upon later analysis it would appear that there was no lack of voting connection between PEG and Surye.

Under the one vote play scum-PEG would have to choose between a vote on his scum buddy and a vote on a townie, making it more likely that his behavior in relation to his scum partner would stand out.

[Adel]

I'm holding past games, like tree stump, against you.

[Adel]

I think LML is tired of mafia, and I don't think he likes playing in games with me specifically.

[Adel]

I kind of like Adel's attempt to deter people from striking a light for no reason, but I would suggest she use a little bit of discression and not necessarally blow up ANYONE who strikes a light. Still, if she does force the town to use a little bit more reason, it should help our odds.

there can not be an out. this needs to be an absolute. Scum can use the wiggle room, claiming confusion, or try to use rhetoric to give themselves room to maneuver.

There can be no way for an enforcer to back out of her responsibility to the town. Even if she is protown, confusion over her motivation and alignment will cause chaos for the town.

2: Once >66% of living players are voting for one of two players, one of those players strikes a light and kills the other. If both the #1 and the #2 player refuse to do this (should only happen if both are scum) a volunteer will kill one and then another volunteer will kill the other.

One problem with this method is that this could apply to more then two people. If 33% of the town is voting for person A, 33% of the town is voting for person B, and 33% of the town is voting for person C, then all three of them would fit the criteria she's given here. The same applies even if 50% are voting for person A, 30% are voting for person B and 20% are voting for person C, or whatever; basically, there could easily be more then 2 people who fit the criteria of "66% of the town is voting for one of two players".

33 + 33 == 66
66 is not greater than 66

if 50% vote for A, 30% vote for B and 20% vote for C then A and B die. isn't that really obvious?

The more fundimental problem is that we can force someone to blow someone up or be blown up himself, but we can't force him TO blow up any one person in specific; once he realizes he's going to die no matter what, we kind of lose all leverage there. I'm not sure what the solution for that is, though, other then just to hope that at least most townies are smart enough to realize the advantages to the town from them going along with the will of the town even if it means their death.

hesitation to go along with it is so anti-town that only scum or the King Of The Village Idiots would resist the town consensus.

I expect scum stuck in a position where the town is pressuring them to kill a scumbuddy to present a case that parallels Yos2's point here.

fos

yos2 for laying the rhetorical foundation for scum to attempt to resist the best interests of the town.

If two players have the 66+% of the votes needed for our consensus to be reached, and resist, then we conclude that they are both scum, and elect a third to blow up one and then the other.

[Adel]

if you want to quibble, push for 75% or 80% to be used rather than 66%.

[Adel]

The point I was making is that if we think person A is scum, we can't necessarally expect them to kill person B on our command. It might be better if the town specifically nomiates who we want to do the kill and who we want to be the target, instead of just saying "top two people kill each other", since once someone strikes a light and waits 24 hours they could basically do whatever they wanted, and we don't want that. That just common sense, right?

Consider the following cases for players we will call A, B and C

Players A & B are the two scummiest by town (one vote per player) consensus. C is the enforcer.

1. If A and B are both town: we tell A and B to strike a light and kill each other. One of them does, let us say A does, and the other will target him as soon as possible.

2. If A is town and B is scum: we tell A and B to strike a light and kill each other. B lurks or tries to type his way out of it. A strikes a light and kills himself and B.

3. If A and and B are both scum and both refuse to kill each other, the enforcer strikes a light and kills A. The next enforcer kills B the next day.

4. If A, B and C are all scum then their refusal to play along identifies them all as being scum, and my plan breaks down. The remaining townies will have to figure out their own way forward with three scum identified.

~~~

What if the enforcer is also player A or B? Before her death she should name her replacement. If her alignment is revealed to be town then her choice sticks. If her alignment is revealed to be scum then the town should elect another enforcer.

~~~

@ LML: care to weigh in?

[Adel]

I already called it for tomorrow and named quaagmire as my replacement. I think you would be a good choice for it though.

[Adel]

Consider the following cases for players we will call A, B and C

Players A & B are the two scummiest by town (one vote per player) consensus. C is the enforcer.

1. If A and B are both town: we tell A and B to strike a light and kill each other. One of them does, let us say A does, and the other will target him as soon as possible.

2. If A is town and B is scum: we tell A and B to strike a light and kill each other. B lurks or tries to type his way out of it. A strikes a light and kills himself and B.

The point I was just making is that if we tell A and B to kill each other, and A is town and B is scum, probably B will instead kill player X, where X happenes to be the pro-town guy that everyone already thinks is pro-town, so he can do more damage that way. That's why I think my suggestion works better, becuase it seems to avoid that risk.

scum-A kills player X? cool, I'm down with that, dead scum being the objective. Scum-B can die the next day along with whomever we think the next most scummy player is. The only way we can kill scum is through losing the life of a townie, and it really doesn't matter if a townie explodes with a scum or if the scum explodes with a townie.

Your plan allows for enough wiggle room to allow scum to maneuver and sabotage the town's chances to win. What is the advantage again?


I think the you may be contesting this due to ^1. your alignment being anti-town and ^2. hubris.

[Adel]

ok then how about once we have settled on which two must die, they both must quickly strike a light and target each other? If only one strikes a light we can probably conclude that he is town and will go through with targeting the other guy who refused to strike a light.

Before either are instructed to strike a light we should confirm that both players have been on the site and therefore should be aware that their number is up.

We should also keep in mind that this process could take up to three days, so if there is deadline pressure we should make a decision three or four days before the deadline.


~~~


also, does >66% sound good, or is there another number that you may think is better?

[Adel]

from what I can tell yos2 is alive in two large games (including this one) as well as two mini's.

Even in minis I consider the accidental naming of how many players are in the mafia to a decent enough scumtell for a lynch in the early phase of the game. I agree that 3 or 4 mafia players is probably right.

I'm going to go ahead and predict that both yos2 and skuffs are scum, along with a third who struck a light already.

[Adel]

sticking with a scum group of (yos2 + skruffs)+(a player who has struck a light already)

[Adel]

vote:yos2

I will kill the first person who strikes a light without town consensus

I'm still linking yos2 to skruffs.

yos2 asked for an explanation: LML's targeting of ooba convinced me that he was town.

[Adel]

That dosn't really answer my question at all, Adel. Sure, LML wouldn't make that kill as scum. But the odd thing was that you seemed to know OOBA was town, even though you'd been attacking him all day; you seemed to know LML's kill was a mistake even though you were pushing him to do it. Could you explain that?

Once LML targeted ooba I felt like he was a total chode, like a self hammering townie. I can see that I put LML in a "can't win" posistion, but he is a grown-up and I falsely expected that he could deal with it, or at least draw a bunch of positions from people. Instead he threw an tantrum and prematuraly killed ooba, and then didn't even take the time to give us any insight from a player with a proven-by-death alignment.

I was agnostic of ooba's alignment, feeling that his odds of being scum were probably average. ~15% probably, perhaps as high as 20%. I assumed a move as boneheaded as LML's wouldn't result in dead scum.

If ooba was scum wouldn't you be linking me to ooba as having bussed him?

[Adel]

as for me attacking oobs, good luck finding a game where I didn't attack a newbie during day 1 and day 2 to get a read off of them.

[Adel]

WHy would ADel-scum NOT potentially sacrifice herself at the expense of getting a string of townies to sacrifice themselves in killing other townies?

For that matter, why wouldn't mafia have killed Adel last night, since so many seem to think of her as town? With her gone, we'd have to find a new enforcer.

unvote, vote:Skruffs

I still link skruffs to yos2

quagmire is my replacement as enforcer

[Adel]

damnit. someone had better listen to me. quagmire is next up as enforcer, and if he dies without naming a replacement, PEG is his replacement.

[Adel]

DYNAMITE: UltimaAvalon

[Adel]

any last words?

[Adel]

DYNAMITE: ULTIMAVALON

just in case the first try didn't work.

[Adel]

yes, a policy lynch does result in three dead townies, probably even in this case....
but the alternative is worse: mad confusion and more irrational behavior.

I did what I promised to do, and if I had done anything else

the scum (yos2 + and skruffs)

would use it to push my lynch and confuse and mislead the town.

I advocate the death of quagmire if he hesitated to follow the stated policy we agreed to.

I heavily advocate the death of Skruffs and Yos2 asap.

Not lighting matches is a good way to end this.

[Adel]

I intended to kill UA with that post.
I was confident that Yos2 was scum at that point, but I felt that I had to set an example.

Thanks for winning the game for us NabNab!

[Adel]

ok, here, have a Mario cookie for winning: