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

[farside22]

Unvote

Maybe we should take a second to talk about the lack of kills tonight?
Could it be that the drunkards were out of play throughout the night, and that explains it?

Possibly. Who was that? lawrencelot? Who else?

Also could be a RBer or doc or something.

I believe the 3 people effected were Landlord, Literal and Lawrencelot. (Hehe the 3 L's)

[Lawrencelot]

I'll check the pm which I got again:

Hm it literally said that I went to my home. I don't think that means that I can't be targeted, in normal mafia flavor the kill targets are in their homes sleeping right?

Did everybody tell what their drinks did yet?

[TonyMontana]

I don't know what other people were thinking, but I certainly was not considering you drunkards being targets, if you catch my drift.

[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.

[farside22]

Actually fonz it is true. Yesterday before the Landlord came in you made only one statement. Then joked about Mafia being killed with a drink. You supported Mafia's lynch. Other then that not much can be said in regards to you actually scum hunting.

[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.

[forbiddanlight]

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. 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.

Because your opinion, as so often, is wrong.

When farside voted him, that was a lynching majority.

And deadline was fast approaching. Not buying it.

[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?

[forbiddanlight]

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.

We don't know. And more importantly, WE DON'T KNOW IF THE DRINKS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT!

In conclusion, hypoclaim is worse than useless for the town.

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.

That's just not true.

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

[farside22]

I think we need to settle this by hearing from the other two who were effected.

mod: please prod literal and landlord

[forbiddanlight]

I think we need to settle this by hearing from the other two who were effected.
mod: please prod literal and landlord

I don't think landlord was a real player. But if he was, awesome.

But, I do mostly agree. I highly doubt they'll claim "Oh yeah, totally couldn't do night actions while intoxicated"

[Landlord]

What's a hypoclaim?

[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.

[farside22]

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.

[forbiddanlight]

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

Let's put this one to the public.

Does anyone who ISN'T trying to misrepresent me understand my point about why a hypoclaim is damaging?

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

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
[/quote][/quote]

ceding this point. I didn't read timestamps. You are right. But I refuse the offer. I don't even like you that much, much less desire to commit such a carnal act .

[Lawrencelot]

I don't know what other people were thinking, but I certainly was not considering you drunkards being targets, if you catch my drift.

I understand now. Well, what you are not saying but what you are meaning, is possible, I guess (shrug). Though I'm not sure if Landlord is a real player with a real role.

Let's put this one to the public.

Does anyone who ISN'T trying to misrepresent me understand my point about why a hypoclaim is damaging?

Yes. Mafia go after the person who claimed the same target as mafia. But this can be solved, I think, by letting no more than 3 different targets in total be claimed. So, for example, townie claims A, second townie claims A, third townie claims B, fourth townie claims A (he is not allowed to say C because that would screw things up), doctor claims C, townie claims C, another townie claims C and then the mafia don't know which one of the persons who claimed C is the real doctor.

This is a plan for the simplified situation where there is only 1 kill and where we know that there is 1 person who blocked the kill. In either situation, we have to make sure every target is claimed twice to keep the mafia guessing. The only problem is that there might be a doc AND a RB (or even other kill-blocking roles), and that we don't know enough about the drinks. If someone can come up with a good strategy for our current situation, I'm all for hypo-claiming, but I doubt that will happen.

[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.

[Landlord]

I'd be fine with a hypoclaim.

[Lawrencelot]

@ 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.

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.

[Lawrencelot]

Sorry for DP, testing some things:
@Landlord: -Are you a player in this game? Have you received a role pm?
-Could you vote someone who has zero votes to show us that you can vote?
-Who's the scum?

[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.

[forbiddanlight]

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.

Then I misunderstood you. This is actually passably null to slightly beneficial for the town weighed against what the scum gets. I am in support.

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

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

Actually, this is what led me to believe you failed to understand

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

Well, part of me wants any doctors/RBs to claim, to establish if it was incapacitation due to strong drink or an action that prevented the kill, but the other part says this is a horrible idea since it gives way too much scum info, so for now, I'd rather sit on this.

Either way, I think we've cleared everything up, Fonz. SSK still needs to die.

[Lawrencelot]

@ 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...

Yeah I already thought about that. But the RB knows that as well, so if he's not too inactive he can prevent that himself.

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 the doc and RB had different targets, how can you say that the scum does not know which was the actual stopper? They just look at which target matches theirs. Either I'm missing something, or you're just confusing yourself here.

[Litral]

Ah, forgot about this, the hangover was pretty bad.

I got prodded, and will read now, and post something in a few minutes...

[Battle Mage]

Vote Count

MafiaSSK 2 (Lawrencelot, Forbiddanlight)

Not Voting: The Fonz, Farside22, Litral, TonyMontana, Landlord, MafiaSSK, Elvis Knits

9 players remain, 5 votes will lynch. Litral has been Prodded.

BM