The Werewolves of Millers Hollow (Game Over)

[dingoatemybaby]

I think we should elect a mayor based on everyone putting up 2 candidates.

Why? Don't we already have a system for electing a Mayor? What is the advantage of everyone fake voting for two people instead of people just actually voting for the person they think should be Mayor? And after we all state our two favorites, and a winner is chosen, we are to expect people to vote for this person even if they don't support him or her? This seems like a waste of time and effort. Vote for your preference, and try to convince others to do the same.

As for X, I'm leaning towards seeing what happens during the night. It feels like we are wasting a whole lot of time on him.

@Shadow Knight - Why isn't it good enough just to vote for Mayor? What is gained by your far more complex voting system? Does it matter that your system is non-binding even as it takes twice as long?

[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.

[dingoatemybaby]

How about this. Why don't we all list our top four methods for deciding how to vote for mayor and our top four method for deciding how to vote for a lynch. The top three from each will then go into a round robin style voting contest, where the winner of each round will be determined by a method to be determined through an three day elimination challenge. The winner of the round robin contest will be validated by two thirds of the most experienced players and a simple majority of less experienced players. If validated, people can then use these methods to decide who and how they are going to vote for. I propose we vote on my proposal.

Or, just for kicks, we could just

Vote for Mayor

for whoever we want to be mayor and

Vote:

for whoever we want to lynch.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I think we should elect a mayor based on everyone putting up 2 candidates.

Why? Don't we already have a system for electing a Mayor? What is the advantage of everyone fake voting for two people instead of people just actually voting for the person they think should be Mayor?

Use of the dual vote system forces people to show a preference for an alternative to self-voting, for a start.

[Percy]

Uh, ANYONE who is town and not a mason or role with a night action should want to be nightkilled. Duh.

Wat.
I think what you're assuming is that his only power is unlynchable. If that's the case, then I agree somewhat - him being NKed is better than a powerrole getting NKed. That said, saying that a vanilla townie should wish for death is ridiculous. A vanilla townie can be so much more beneficial to the town (in the long run) than a powerrole, given the right play and the right player. One townie can be better than another. And so on.
I think you're trying to make some sort of general rule which doesn't exist, while confusing the hell out of me and making me look scummy.
I don't like how you just dropped 'mason' in there, either.

This looks like I'm defending Xtomx, which is really not where I want to be. I just think that the claim had to come out, and I'm glad it came out now, and we should be looking at his playstyle rather than policy lynching him based on his claim.

I suggest you start contributing. You'll get my vote in 48 hours if you don't start scumhunting and analysing like a motherfucker.

I have an irresistable urge to lynch you right now.

The way you quoted my post made it sound like that comment was directed at you; it wasn't. I think that dropping a claim like that and then lurking throughout the rest of the day is scummy.

Uh, no it doesn't make it sound like that at all. It makes it sound like BM thinks your comment is scummy. And I agree.

Firstly, the quoted paragraphs have stuff in between, and no indication of that was made. That's why I thought it could be mistaken to be directed at BM.
Secondly, my comments have been echoed by other players. Examples:

You know, I'm getting tired of WIFOMing Xtoxm's stuff back and fourth here with absolutely no input from him.

Let's let him come back and answer some of the questions about him, explain his role in a little more detail, ect. If he dosn't do so in the next few days, I'll probably vote him just for lurking at this point.

Zwet, on the Xtomx lynch:

IT'S A PILE OF WIFOM!

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

Sure, the latter two are pointing out the WIFOMery rather than saying they will vote him for being a lurker, but the general sentiment of my first sentence is there - Xtomx's claim is not enough for a lynch. I think his subsequent behaviour

is

indicative of scumminess, but I think that's quite obvious.

So, Fonz, do you think Yosarian is as scummy as me for making his statement? How about the others I quoted? If not, why not?

What good would make us to know the claim so early? If he's trule a unlynchable townie, claiming would only take him to a certain N1K. And, why would he want that? I can only think in a use for that as a way to protect another power role from a NK, but that isn't the case right now. And claiming to get the major role isn't good either, as other players have said, why would we want to have an unlynchable major that we can't disposse in case he's doing a bad job? That would be like having a dictator! Really, I can't see how his early claim is good. Also, in general, uncalled claims are never good.

What I was trying to get at is that claiming unlynchable while you're under suspicion will only hasten your wagon, which means (if he really is unlynchable) it will hasten a "no lynch". This is not good. Instead, we now know that there is a risk of a "no lynch", but if we think Xtomx is scummy enough to earn our vote anyway, then we can go ahead and lynch him.

How about this. Why don't we all list our top four methods for deciding how to vote for mayor and our top four method for deciding how to vote for a lynch. The top three from each will then go into a round robin style voting contest, where the winner of each round will be determined by a method to be determined through an three day elimination challenge. The winner of the round robin contest will be validated by two thirds of the most experienced players and a simple majority of less experienced players. If validated, people can then use these methods to decide who and how they are going to vote for. I propose we vote on my proposal.

I like this. Let's vote on what plan to use, then vote on whether to vote for mayor or lynch first!

Voting for a lurker 87 posts in?

Sure! It was still randomish, and I like to make sure those who aren't contributing don't slip under the radar. It's really easy to

Unvote Ztife for Lynch

later, you see?

Also, here's a PBPA of Dizzy, with questions:
-Votes self for mayor
-Votes Xtomx for lynch, says she won't shift her vote unless she's "absolutely sure" the player is town

How can you be absolutely sure? Also, how dangerous do you think a scumayor is?

-BM accuses Dizzy of holding back until she can make a casting vote
-Dizzy replies with a simple "no I'm being wise", without really addressing his point
-Wants a lynch on Xtomx for meta as well
-Claims "There's far less obfuscation involved [in using your vote judiciously] than jumping from place to place."

I disagree - putting your votes down when you suspect someone makes it clear on re-reads and easier for the town to follow the paper-trail.

-Starts using Shadow Knight's proposal of voting two people for mayor, and later claims that it's great because people have to show a preference other than self voting.

I'm reluctant to vote anyone for mayor who self-votes, simply because it gives me no good information and is available to both scum and town. Now you can still vote for yourself, and state a preference, apparently. Why not simply vote for someone else? If other people like your playstyle, they will vote for you. If you haven't stated that you don't want to be mayor, or even said that you

do

want to be mayor, you'll get over the line. I just don't understand why your self-vote is so important to you.

[Yosarian2]

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?

...I'm sorry, perhaps it's because it's late, but I have no idea what you're talking about. There are some people who agree with me about Xtoxm, and Fonz seems to disagree with me.

Also, what miller role? Xtoxm didn't claim miller; no one claimed miller. What are you talking about?

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.

Sure, but worst of all is scum as mayor elected day 1 and then staying mayor all game. I don't know why people keep acting like that's impossible, it certanly is not.

Anyway, I'm still happy with my Fonz vote for mayor at the moment.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="Percy" That said, saying that a vanilla townie should wish for death is ridiculous. A vanilla townie can be so much more beneficial to the town (in the long run) than a powerrole, given the right play and the right player. One townie can be better than another. [/quote]

Wishing for death, no.

Wishing to get nightkilled by scum, absoltuly. Unless a town role gets really lucky, scum kill someone every night. If you are a vanillia townie, you WANT that someone to be you, rather then a power role.

So, Fonz, do you think Yosarian is as scummy as me for making his statement? How about the others I quoted? If not, why not?

I was attacking Xtoxm. You, and Zwert, were defending him. If he comes up scum, then you both are scummy as anything.

"IT'S ALL WIFOM" is a crappy reason to demand that other people unvote someone who's only action all game has been a fairly unlikely (and completly anti-town, since there was absolutly no reason for it) claim and demands that he be elected mayor.

[Gorrad]

How about this. Why don't we all list our top four methods for deciding how to vote for mayor and our top four method for deciding how to vote for a lynch. The top three from each will then go into a round robin style voting contest, where the winner of each round will be determined by a method to be determined through an three day elimination challenge. The winner of the round robin contest will be validated by two thirds of the most experienced players and a simple majority of less experienced players. If validated, people can then use these methods to decide who and how they are going to vote for. I propose we vote on my proposal.

Or, just for kicks, we could just

Vote for Mayor

for whoever we want to be mayor and

Vote:

for whoever we want to lynch.

This makes me lol.

Seriously, guys. If they're likely to vote against scum in your opinion, elect them. If you think they're scum, vote for them. I fail to see how that's difficult.

True, the doublevote could be an incentive for a newbie to participate more than they normally would. However, an experienced player like Fonz or BM is more likely to use the double vote wisely. I'd rather have a town double-voter that participates as much as they normally would than a scum double-voter that participates rather than lurks (lurking being a scumtell).

[Ztife]

Yay. I like percy now that he unvoted me.

I have a suggestion...

Instead of electing ... (Post 226)

This is WIFOM. If a person has a double vote, he could look more suspicious with his hammers and such if they are wrong. On the other hand, its just as explainable that he has to have sufficient reason to vote. It will be exactly the same as a person who has 1 vote, only that if it counts for 2.

Anybody with 2 votes will always try to shake off the responsibily when the vote goes wrong, whether townie or scum. Just about in the case where everybody will want to hammer and then say "Now that he is townie, it was a wrong hammer, but he was scummy". Anybody disagreeing other would be playing a WIFOM game, and for that to happen is rare anyway.

In a nutshell, everybody will

usually

say that it was a mistake to vote a townie (and usually don't even say at all), whether townie or scum did it, whether its 1 vote or 2 votes. Thus a scum-mayor doesn't make a difference with a regular scum, or a townie, or a townie-mayor, in terms of voting. When you vote, you essentially place yourself to think that a person is guilty. The only difference is it requires 1 less player to support. It doesn't make you more or less scummy just because you have a double vote.

On the other hand, what I suggested was to make people create MORE discussions when it comes to using the mayor's vote. I don't see how this will be bad for town, "blame" shifting is really just looking at things on the surface and not thinking it through.

[MikeSC6]

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

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.

Anyway, if we're so certain we could decide on two scum- why not lynch one and vig the other, rather than keeping one alive (and not knowing if we're right about them for a day or two)?

I reckon, rather than lynching Xtoxm- we should direct our vig(s) if we have any his way. I don't yet know who my lynch for today would be.

Although if he turns out to be unnightkillable, or doesn't die that night for whatever reason- that could be quite bad for us. We could lynch him, and if that fails have him vigged? Or would that be a waste of a lynch?

[Battle Mage]

How about this. Why don't we all list our top four methods for deciding how to vote for mayor and our top four method for deciding how to vote for a lynch. The top three from each will then go into a round robin style voting contest, where the winner of each round will be determined by a method to be determined through an three day elimination challenge. The winner of the round robin contest will be validated by two thirds of the most experienced players and a simple majority of less experienced players. If validated, people can then use these methods to decide who and how they are going to vote for. I propose we vote on my proposal.

Or, just for kicks, we could just

Vote for Mayor

for whoever we want to be mayor and

Vote:

for whoever we want to lynch.

lmfao. xD
This actually brought tears to my eyes. I vote Yes on the first proposal. xD

BM

[Ztife]

Firestarter, large post, difficult to quote, but basically in replies to you.

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.|

Lastly, correction to my post.

I meant too early to lurker hunt instead of scum hunt

.

[Yosarian2]

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

[knox]

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.

I’ve seen that some people want a mayor that is experienced, active and pro town but have also seen some say they want a newer player who is pro town, active and will step up more than they usually would if given the position. I was wondering which one you all like better and why? I am more behind the idea of an experienced player as I think they will handle the pressure better and make the right decisions, though it really depends on the player themself.

[Dr Pepper]

@ DizzyIzzy: Well thats not the response I was expecting, but I share the idea that we should be lynching Xtoxm before the end of the game. I am quite fine doing it today as long as ample discussion is had and with out a mayor, this day may be longer than your average day. Your stalling has been accounted for though.

@ Xtoxm: You are generating a massive pile of WIFOM on epic levels. That is rarely good for the town. I would appreciate it if you would clear some of the confusion.

@ Juls: OK, you have determined that his meta is false-claiming. Do you want a player like that sticking around for too long.

@ Firestarter: I share the idea that I would like to see potential scum as major. The major 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.

@ Percy : Thanks for the PBPA of Dizzy. I understand what you mean about hastening a wagon with his claim after it has started. But right now he has made a hard to believe claim, lurked heavily afterwards, and creating so much WIFOM. All of these lead me to believe he is either harmful townie or scum. Had he only made his claim but stayed more active, I would only be pressure voting instead of wanting his lynch.

@ Yosarian2: Giving scummy players a power (ie mayor) only becomes harmful if it is used without our knowledge. Having a double vote is like waving a giant sign around saying "hey guys look at me!" and having that much attention on scum is generally not the best plan.

@ Battlemage: That jester claim does not look good for you. Especially after multiple people asked for the speculation to stop. Scum often use joking to avoid providing content.

@ Mufasa: There is so much going on right now, surely you can provide a comment on something other than just voting yourself and hiding in the background.

@ zwets: LAL is a great strategy. If both townies and scum are lying, the informed minority will probably out play the uniformed majority because everyone has a plan going on noone will have an easy time sorting out the facts.

Uvote Mayor
Unvote Lynch

Vote Lynch Xtoxm

[Mufasa]

haha wow. All the commotion. Well here's what I think I think we make a mayor vote and soon. Therefore, I do think that it would be in the best interest to vote for battle mage.

change mayor vote vote: battleMage

[Mufasa]

Fix

change vote vote: battlemage for mayor

[MikeSC6]

@ Battlemage: That jester claim does not look good for you. Especially after multiple people asked for the speculation to stop. Scum often use joking to avoid providing content.

If Battlemage was lurking and had only made a joke post, I'd agree that it would indicate scum. But we've had plenty of activity in addition to this from Battlemage.

@ Firestarter: I share the idea that I would like to see potential scum as major. The major 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.

Held more accountable? Shouldn't we hold any scummy players accountable? I don't see how this would make much of a difference- except, of course, as an easy way for scum (if we actually do elect scum...) to dodge voting except when absolutely safe. I'd much sooner see it in the hands of a likely-townie confident enough to use their double-vote when they think they should.

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?

[Battle Mage]

@ Battlemage: That jester claim does not look good for you. Especially after multiple people asked for the speculation to stop. Scum often use joking to avoid providing content.

If Battlemage was lurking and had only made a joke post, I'd agree that it would indicate scum. But we've had plenty of activity in addition to this from Battlemage.

The first part of the post sounds like a threat, on the grounds my claim was serious.

Will catch up properly later.

BM

[MikeSC6]

The first part of the post sounds like a threat, on the grounds my claim was serious.

Will catch up properly later.

BM

Damn, you're really a Jester? I took it as a joke.

Wait...am I being had?

[Jahudo]

Scared of the Mayor position? Why?

No, I’ll take it if people think I’ll use it best.

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?

Good point. Maybe a scum mayor wouldn’t want to risk implicating a scum partner by having them succeed as mayor. In any case we’ll have to look closely at that successor should this scenario happen.

I like The Fonz's idea that the mayor can be someone who looks pro-town but isn't one of the strongest voices of pressuring people and bringing forth suspicions. For that reason I wouldn't prefer The Fonz, Juls or Yos.

BM is still a good choice, even though he's a veteran and reasonably active, I feel that he's playing a little more passively than he could be today and joking a little too much. I'd like that extra spotlight on him if he's mayor too.

I don't think Percy looks suspicious for his opinion on how vanilla townies should not want to get killed, although I agree with the fonz that vanilla's should not be concerned with playing to survive the night.

Zwet needs to say something other than X is WIFOM. His entire contribution to this point is that we should not lynch Xtoxm right now, which doesn't seem like an issue until we 1) have a mayor and 2) hear enough from Xtoxm to feel he is truly scum.

I don't like Shadow Knight's night plan. We don't know if a vig exists and we shouldn't publicly direct him because the public includes scum who can influence the vidge.

ZONEACE NEEDS TO SHOW HIS ZONEFACE

[zwetschenwasser]

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

[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.

[zwetschenwasser]

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.

[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.