Dynamite Stick Mafia! GAME OVER

[Quagmire]

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

Don't. Consider this game a terrible reason to meta-game someone.

[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?

[pickemgenius]

dibs on enforcer.

[Adel]

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

[Yosarian2]

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.

[pickemgenius]

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

damn.

[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.

[Yosarian2]

scum-A kills player X? cool, I'm down with that, dead scum being the objective.

Uh, yeah, but I'd rather townie-we-think-is-scum kills scum A instead, since that increases our odds of lynching right the next day. If both A and B are scum, then hey, we're pretty much set anyway.

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?

What? My plan allows for a lot less wiggle room then yours. Did you read my plan?

Once we have our best two suspects for tommorow, we probably want to be more specific then that, and actually direct them, like "Person A, strike a light, and then person B, we expect you to kill person A right away before the 24 hours is up." That way, if EITHER person A or person B is town, we can pretty much guarentee that they'll both die; if person A refuses to strike a light, then we can reverse it and have person B strike a light and kill him; and if person B refuses to detonate person A, then we can have person A just blow up person B once the 24 hours is up.

The town saying "Person A. Strike a light now. Once he does, then person B, you must kill him." gives them a LOT less wiggle room then your vauge "Ok, guys, go ahead and kill each other now." If one of the two of them is scum, it pretty much prevents that person from taking out a different townie instead; person A can't take out a different townie, because person B kills him before the 24 hours are up, and person B can't take out anyone but person A, because (hopefully) person A's the only one who struck a light.

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

I think you may be contesting this because you didn't really read what I said. Otherwise, I can't understand how you don't see that a vauge "you guys kill each other now" plan is less effective then my plan.

[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?

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

I disagree with Yosarian2.

I'm such a rebel.

I think Adel's plan is fine. Other than that, I don't have much to say until tomorrow.

[skitzer]

Greater than 66% sounds good. 2/3 is more of a concrete decision than 51/100.

[Skruffs]

Okay.

Day 2, already? I wasn't even notified day one had started.

[Yosarian2]

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.

Ok, that's fine. Just so long as we make sure it's over before the 24 hours are 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.

Good point. If it comes to a deadline, we unfortunatly might have to make a more hasty decision, but hopefully it won't come to that.

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

Yeah, that's fine. I guess we might as well make it "greather then 66%, or else the top two vote-getters at 3 days before deadline".

[Skruffs]

INitial thoughts:
DGB is an impulsive town player.
Yosarian2 wants town to be nonimpulsive.
Would Yos have killed DGB to prevent her from quickdynamiting him or one of his buddies?
Discuss.

[Skruffs]

If someone strikes a light and doesn't dynamite after 24 hours, they don't blow themselves up, do they?

Fos : Adel

for trying to railroad quick lynches

[Skruffs]

Also: Make sure CES doesn't reach the end of this game. Really suspicious (even for CES)

[Skruffs]

Reading backwards is fun.

Why would town kill someone for striking a light?
If mafia strikes a light and blows up town, the mafia is hurt more than the town.
Let mafia blow themselves up. LML was in error, I think

[Skruffs]

Lastly:
Sarcastro is probably scum, Quag is scum only if he's tricksy. H ow tricksy is Quag, usually?

I was never sent a PM about this thread or that the game had started - considering how fast mafia got their nightkill in, though, they probably did *all* know it had started and so were active, at least in the beginning of today, if not before then. AIt's a poor meta but definitely something to consider. Too bad there's no protection against mafia kills; we wind up losing three townies per cycle with each mistake a townie makes.

[Yosarian2]

INitial thoughts:
DGB is an impulsive town player.
Yosarian2 wants town to be nonimpulsive.
Would Yos have killed DGB to prevent her from quickdynamiting him or one of his buddies?
Discuss.

I want town to be non-impulsive becasue impulsive townies in this type of game almost inevitably help the scum. See: Bad idea mafia, bad idea mafia II, Mad mafia, Mad mafia II. Every single game impulsive townies end up badly hurting the town. And look at day 1 of this game as well, for that matter.

[elvis_knits]

I was never sent a PM about this thread or that the game had started - considering how fast mafia got their nightkill in, though, they probably did *all* know it had started and so were active, at least in the beginning of today, if not before then. AIt's a poor meta but definitely something to consider. Too bad there's no protection against mafia kills; we wind up losing three townies per cycle with each mistake a townie makes.

I like how your theory implies your innocence.

[kuribo]

Fos : Adel

for trying to railroad quick lynches

I think you're misreading what Adel's trying to do, here.

[pickemgenius]

Fos : Adel

for trying to railroad quick lynches

I think you're misreading what Adel's trying to do, here.

It can be read many different ways.
Specially since Adel is a suave MF who can make anything sound good.

[Skruffs]

I probably don't see everything she's trying to do; but I don't think that, especially 'once town has decided' (ie majority) that a quick-bombing is warranted. It seems like she's starting off with protown intentions but trying to add as much pro-scum pork to it as possible. There's as much room for panicky fearmongering as there is for impulsive towniness.

Yos: I'm not discrediting you, I'm drawing paralells between your stated agenda and potential mafia thoughtprocesses.

Elvis_knits: I like your resentment of my theory. Tells me you're nervous I might be right; you didn't contradict the theory, only attacked my motivation for bringing it up.

[Yosarian2]

Hwh...well, Skruffs, when you come into a thread and say "here's a theory that demonstrates that my lurking proves I'm pro-town", you can't expect people to just accept it. I mean, if nothing else, you could theoretically have lurked just in order to make that defense when you did show up.

Besides which, considering how little time the scum have to send in night-kills in this game, I'm not sure why you're assuming that all three members of the mafia carefully discussed what they should do before sending in the kill.

[Sarcastro]

Sarcastro is probably scum

Really? Figured that out from my one post, did you?

I'm a bit confused - I thought LML had killed Ooba. Did I miss something?