MtG: Parallel Universe Mafia (fl's subgame): Game Over

[Papa Zito]

This thing seems to be scaring you more than it should.

This thing seems to be scaring you a hell of a lot less then it should, if you are town.

Maybe, though that could be because I'm in it. But we haven't heard from Porkens or Tajo yet, so it's kinda premature to flip out about it anyway.

Besides THE UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE, anything else interesting to you?

[Flava Flave]

Tar's game

Pretty sure Pyro is town. Pretty sure Benmage and DDD are telling the truth and would support a vig/subgameswap on either. Budja and Malth are best bets for finding scum. The point they make about Zito not having town's win condition is crap. Look for scum on Pyro's wagon. Anyone wants reasons for anything, ask. Probably better to bold at the very least if you talk to me from another subgame.

[Yosarian2]

Besides THE UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE, anything else interesting to you?

Many things are, and I've discussed several of them already. But they are going to have to wait until after this issue is resolved, one way or the other.

[Flava Flave]

Zito, why do you know that DDD has a fakeclaim?

Benmage has one.

Just saw that.

[Flava Flave]

SSK's game

Look more at your own game and less at ours/Tar's. Yes, look at all 3 games. Just don't let it distract you from yours. Chenhsi is probably scum because of his anxiousness to start and attempts to lynch a player not in their game. My vote would be on Chenhsi and unlikely to move if I was there.

[SpyreX]

No one cares that you can read your own PM.
Until after you're dead, nothing you say about such is concrete.
You can claim different roles, abilities, and restrictions until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, it is still just a claim.

Well, gee golly, I care gosh darnit.

Yes it is just a claim. However, as should be apparent, I am confident that what I am saying will have backing.

Good to see you're not even attempting to refute the fact you have a much greater vested interest in the other games than I do.

Oh yes, because scum is the only threat you could possibly worry about. Very naive.
SK? Unlikely for the amount of attention drawn, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Cult recruiter? Well someone has already claimed non-recruitable as part of their role.
Or possibly some other anti-town role.

Yes, very naive. Got me again.

SK, as you yourself admit, is very unlikely.
If you are saying "He is threatining to vig someone thus: cult recruiter" well I dont even know what to say about that.

Like I've said and I will clarify: sometimes the cigar is just a cigar. As for your point of discussion regarding that:

Oh please enlighten me.

Tar did not design and is not modding this subgame. FL is modding and Gurgi designed it. This is detailed out specifically in the topic you signed up for.

So... wacky hijinks still as a function of Tar being mod?

I'll talk to yos in a skosh.

[SpyreX]

Not really. Assuming there's one kill, one lynch, and our claimed lover gets sent over to the other game tonight, tommorow there will be only 9 people left. Which means there's only 6 people not in your ALLIANCE. It's 5 votes to lynch. If there's 1 scum in your ALLIANCE and two scum outside of your ALLIANCE, then assuming that the people in your alliance don't vote each other, then there's no possible way for the town people not in your alliance to lynch a scum in your alliance, at all, unless the scum help, which they won't. And it only gets worse from there, as your alliance becomes a bigger and bigger part of the town.

Basically, if the town allows this alliance to happen today, and there is one scum in it, town loses. Period. So we won't.

There is another assumption that is being not applied that really surprises me: Sociopath's flip.

If my UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE does move forward AND I am right that means:

1.) If there are scum within said ALLIANCE they are bussing said partners for ultimately minimal gain (as said ALLIANCE is not going to stop being a point of contention).
2.) I am right about said players.

Further, you seem to be operating under the assumption that this is mountainous - if the setup was like that I would most definitely lean towards your viewpoint. However, I'm confident to say Magic The Gathering isn't going to be a mountainous setup.

So, I've put myself in a position where if I WAS scum there are a myriad of roles that would out me right quick.

You do bring up a point about DDD being a neutral faction and I haven't decided how that alters the setup as a whole in regards to the balance - although if he does have to be joined with Ben before he wins then he has just as much of an interest in finding scum as town.

That's not the only question. The real question is, does allowing you to do this raise or lower the town's chances of winning, compared with just lynching you today. My goal is to have the town win this game; lynching scum is just a means to that end.

There are two, mostly unrelated, reasons I am voting you now.

See if you actually think I'm scum that's fine then. Stop belaboring the other points so that if and when you get your way and I'm dead the aforementioned flip doesn't give you the out of "ohh he was anti-town thus I am in no way accountable for said lynch"

What I'm doing is unorthodox, sure. I'm already very tempted to kick tajo out of my plan for needing to reread this thread - which isn't a difficult task at this point.

So, if you want to call scum-gambit thats fine. I just want the record to be clear.

[Mufasa]

I propose we try lynching a player in another subgame....

unvote vote: Vino

[Quagmire]

Are we supposed to be reading the other games too? Because I'm sure as hell not going to do that.

[Papa Zito]

Are we supposed to be reading the other games too? Because I'm sure as hell not going to do that.

It's helpful. For example, if you were following SSK's game you'd know that chenhsi is already trying to test lynching a player in another game, which would make you wonder why Mufasa would be doing the exact same thing here.

[Mufasa]

if you look back a few pages you would see I attempted to start this earlier but no one picked up on it

[Papa Zito]

if you look back a few pages you would see I attempted to start this earlier but no one picked up on it

ORLY?

Yes, let's look back.

Curious to see what happens:

Vote: SpyreX

lets all try lynching for a player in a different subgame..

vote: Benmage

and

Could we just try a SpyreX (or anyone in one of the other games) lynch? It would be quite interesting to see what happens.

I propose we try lynching a player in another subgame....

unvote vote: Vino

I'm not sure if you're just trying to look clever or what but you're just parroting chensi here.

[Yosarian2]

There is another assumption that is being not applied that really surprises me: Sociopath's flip.

Um...no, I'm not assuming sociopath's alignment at this point, because I do not know it. I want him to answer my questions, and his attack on the claimed lover seems anti-town, but at the moment, your actions are scummier.

If my UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE does move forward AND I am right that means:

1.) If there are scum within said ALLIANCE they are bussing said partners for ultimately minimal gain (as said ALLIANCE is not going to stop being a point of contention).
2.) I am right about said players.

Minimal gain?

If there is scum in the "allinace", and the rest of the town lets the alliance thing happen, then the scum win the game. How the hell is that "minimal gain"?

Further, you seem to be operating under the assumption that this is mountainous - if the setup was like that I would most definitely lean towards your viewpoint. However, I'm confident to say Magic The Gathering isn't going to be a mountainous setup. So, I've put myself in a position where if I WAS scum there are a myriad of roles that would out me right quick.

That would "out you"? What do you mean? If you're speculating about/fishing for a cop already, on page 6 of a game, that's another strike against you.

That's not the only question. The real question is, does allowing you to do this raise or lower the town's chances of winning, compared with just lynching you today. My goal is to have the town win this game; lynching scum is just a means to that end.

There are two, mostly unrelated, reasons I am voting you now.

See if you actually think I'm scum that's fine then. Stop belaboring the other points so that if and when you get your way and I'm dead the aforementioned flip doesn't give you the out of "ohh he was anti-town thus I am in no way accountable for said lynch"

Dude, you're missing the point.

Even if I thought you were no better then a random lynch here, I would still vote you. Consider it a pressure vote to pressure you to stop acting in an anti-town way, with a commitment to lynch you if absolutly necessary to stop you from acting in the anti-town way. I would do that for anyone acting in an anti-town way; lurking, fishing for power roles, ect. This is just an extreme example of anti-town behavior on your part.

What I'm doing is unorthodox, sure.

"Unorthodox" is fine. Anti-town is not.

Explain to me how town could possibly win if we don't lynch you today and one member of your alliance is scum.

So, if you want to call scum-gambit thats fine. I just want the record to be clear.

I think there's a reasonable chance it's a scum gambit, yes. I would be voting for you, and willing to lynch you if neccessary, even if I didn't.

I mean, stop and think about what your plan means. If you think one of the people in your alliance is acting scummy tommorow, are you going to attack and vote him? Are you going to break your "unbreakable alliance"? Becuase from what you're saying right now, I doubt it, and if you are town that's really, really bad for the town.

[SpyreX]

Minimal gain?

If there is scum in the "allinace", and the rest of the town lets the alliance thing happen, then the scum win the game. How the hell is that "minimal gain"?

Now lets take tajo out because his reread comment means he's not alliance material. So we're looking at three of us.

So, lets say rocks fall and everyone but the three of us die - then it's going to be playing ferret out the scum amongst us due to their play. So, the "scum" would be in a precarious position because they'd have had to be super-bussing the whole way and then have to be able to justify it at that point.

Unless, like I said, I have the best inverted radar and managed to pick two scum.

That lived until that point.

And managed not to do anything to raise eyebrows - especially mine.

Well then I'd be dead.

That would "out you"? What do you mean? If you're speculating about/fishing for a cop already, on page 6 of a game, that's another strike against you.

I'm pretty sure that I detailed that out in the quote you referenced when you said it.

The chances of this being mountainous are minimal. Therefore IF I WERE SCUM I have pained a gigantic "PR's come here and bust my ass, please" by the simple act of performing this.

This isn't rolefishing. Or cop-hunting. I was very clear in saying any informational or hell protectional role late game would bust me.

Unless you're making the point that setup speculation is scummy well then thats a different ball of wax.

Dude, you're missing the point.

Even if I thought you were no better then a random lynch here, I would still vote you. Consider it a pressure vote to pressure you to stop acting in an anti-town way, with a commitment to lynch you if absolutly necessary to stop you from acting in the anti-town way. I would do that for anyone acting in an anti-town way; lurking, fishing for power roles, ect. This is just an extreme example of anti-town behavior on your part.

I am not pressured. UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE doesn't mean put on blinders and hit the cruise control for cool.

Ultimately it's no different to me than going - hey, I think you guys are town and am not planning on voting for you any time soon. Lets work together to lynch this guy that I think is scummy. And, if he's scum, lets do a secret handshake and keep on keepin' on.

Explain to me how town could possibly win if we don't lynch you today and one member of your alliance is scum.

By lynching them? I'm still not seeing this huge dichotomy. I'm not playing like they are masons that simply CANT BE SCUM OMG. They're just these dudes, ya know?

Moreso, a lot is dependent on Sociopath's flip. If he's scum I'm going to be a LOT more confident in my picks now and yes, a little smug.

I mean, stop and think about what your plan means. If you think one of the people in your alliance is acting scummy tommorow, are you going to attack and vote him? Are you going to break your "unbreakable alliance"? Becuase from what you're saying right now, I doubt it, and if you are town that's really, really bad for the town.

Maybe this will clear it up if the above didn't:

Yes if anyone in said unbreakable alliance started acting scummy I'd put a noose around their necks before they could even go "Ohh no the ALLIANCE GRBRBRBRBLL"

[SpyreX]

*as an aside we've got a case of the lurkeritis real bad. Yos and I can continue to fight our good fight but the fact we've got so many nonplayers is disheartening.

One, I'm going to send a prodwagon through now if anyone needs it, and two, I'm posting a VC today. Sorry about not doing it yesterday but I got kidnapped for Robot Chicken on Wheels

[Papa Zito]

Now lets take tajo out because his reread comment means he's not alliance material. So we're looking at three of us.

Tajo is never around on weekends, for what that's worth.

Yos, think of it this way. If there is a scum player lurking in THE ALLIANCE then they'll have to follow the three townies, effectively neutering them.

*as an aside we've got a case of the lurkeritis real bad. Yos and I can continue to fight our good fight but the fact we've got so many nonplayers is disheartening.

I got flamed in another game for doing this, but I'm going to do it anyway:

Debonair Danny DiPietro: 11 posts

Flava Flave: 6 posts
jammer: 4 posts

(said activity would be lower)
Mufasa: 17 posts
Papa Zito: 25 posts
populartajo: 10 posts

Porkens: 9 posts
Quagmire: 3 posts
SocioPath: 8 posts

SpyreX: 28 posts
Yosarian2: 17 posts
Zazier: 20 posts

I believe jammer and Zazie are eligible for prods.

[forbiddanlight]

"The clouds obey my whims, and you'll obey theirs." - flavor text, Soratami Mirror-Mage

Hey, Zazie and jammer have been prodded. No one else needs a prod, though we have a couple getting close to the danger zone of it.

The Second Vote Count (aka the "(3):Return three lands you control..." Vote Count)

25) SpyreX (1): Yosarian2
26) Papa Zito (0)
27) Zazie (1): populartajo
28) populartajo (0)
29) Yosarian2 (0)
30) Debonair Danny DiPietro (0)
31) Mufasa (0)
32) Quagmire (0)
33) Porkens (1): SocioPath
34) Flava Flave (2): Zazie, Porkens
35) SocioPath (2): SpyreX, Papa Zito
36) jammer (0)
??) Vino (1): Mufasa

Not Voting (4): Debonair Danny DiPietro, Quagmire, jammer, Flava Flave

Votes required to lynch:

7

Current Deadline:

August 21, 2009 at ~1:00 P.M. EDT (GMT -5)

First Mod Deadline Review:

August 14, 2009 at ~1:00 P.M. (GMT -5)

[Papa Zito]

Looks like chensi's vote didn't make it here. That's good.

[Yosarian2]

So, lets say rocks fall and everyone but the three of us die - then it's going to be playing ferret out the scum amongst us due to their play. So, the "scum" would be in a precarious position because they'd have had to be super-bussing the whole way and then have to be able to justify it at that point.

That's not what would happen, though. What would happen is there would be 5 people left, you guys would lynch someoen not in your alliance, the scum would kill someone in your allaince, and then there would be 3 people left; 2 in your alliance, 1 not. In that case, unless you break your "unbreakable alliance", the scum in your alliance automatically wins the game. And that is what would happen, if there's one scum in your alliance; the scum would ride your alliance all the way close to end game, then kill one of the town people in your alliance and use the other to win the game for the scum.

I already explained this, SpyreX. Are you not even reading my posts here?

That would "out you"? What do you mean? If you're speculating about/fishing for a cop already, on page 6 of a game, that's another strike against you.

I'm pretty sure that I detailed that out in the quote you referenced when you said it.

The chances of this being mountainous are minimal. Therefore IF I WERE SCUM I have pained a gigantic "PR's come here and bust my ass, please" by the simple act of performing this.

Well, then, on the off chance that all three of you are town, you just set it up so the three of you would draw cop investigations AND scum kills. Which is also very bad for the town, since then the confiremd innocents would get scumkilled.

Really, I can't see any situation where this plan of yours does NOT hurt the town.

I mean, stop and think about what your plan means. If you think one of the people in your alliance is acting scummy tommorow, are you going to attack and vote him? Are you going to break your "unbreakable alliance"? Becuase from what you're saying right now, I doubt it, and if you are town that's really, really bad for the town.

Maybe this will clear it up if the above didn't:

Yes if anyone in said unbreakable alliance started acting scummy I'd put a noose around their necks before they could even go "Ohh no the ALLIANCE GRBRBRBRBLL"

So, what's the point, then, if it's not actually an "unbreakable alliance"?

I really don't get what you're trying to do here.

[Mufasa]

chansis vote appears in ssks VC, like my vote appeared herre

[Quagmire]

What's this alliance people are talking about? I must have missed it when I skimmed the thread earlier.

[Yosarian2]

What's this alliance people are talking about? I must have missed it when I skimmed the thread earlier.

Fair enough. Lets shake this up.

Zito, Porkens, Tajo:

I propose we form

THE UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE

.

It will have the following goals in mind:

1.) To lynch Sociopath.
2.) To vig Mufasa if possible.
3.) To descend on dissenters like a pack of wolves. There will be no quarter. There will be only allies and enemies.

* This alliance will break if, and only if, we remain and have a sinner amongst us.

If you agree to these terms, simply vote Sociopath.

Thank you,

SpyreX Industries
Keepin' it Real.

[jammer]

Debonair Danny DiPietro: 11 posts

Flava Flave: 6 posts
jammer: 4 posts

(said activity would be lower)

I still expected I had some more time for this(atleast to post something), but here I am.

MOD: Limited acces from now to sunday(?). I posted today, not sure I will be posting before sunday and don't like to be replaced in the meantime. D:

V/LA noted

I find the fight over the alliance between spyrex and Yos2, a complete waste of space. Yos2 is taking this alliance thingy to serious. Spyrex is keeping to defend the whole alliance stuff for some reason.

I didn't vote yet!
So,

Vote: Quagmire

Was already behind in his starting post. Seems a good vote to me.

@SocioPath,
If Porkens "sig" is part of a post-restriction, how does that make him scum?

@Flava Flave
What relevance with this game can you get out SSK's and Tar's games?

[Papa Zito]

chansis vote appears in ssks VC, like my vote appeared herre

Yes Mufasa. But the point of the experiment was to see if the vote crossed subgames. It hasn't.

Why haven't you unvoted yet?

[SpyreX]

That's not what would happen, though. What would happen is there would be 5 people left, you guys would lynch someoen not in your alliance, the scum would kill someone in your allaince, and then there would be 3 people left; 2 in your alliance, 1 not. In that case, unless you break your "unbreakable alliance", the scum in your alliance automatically wins the game. And that is what would happen, if there's one scum in your alliance; the scum would ride your alliance all the way close to end game, then kill one of the town people in your alliance and use the other to win the game for the scum.

I already explained this, SpyreX. Are you not even reading my posts here?

And I've said that I do not expect blinders. In that scenario if the other person is not scummy I'd sure as hell expect the hammer to get dropped on said alliance member.

Well, then, on the off chance that all three of you are town, you just set it up so the three of you would draw cop investigations AND scum kills. Which is also very bad for the town, since then the confiremd innocents would get scumkilled.

Really, I can't see any situation where this plan of yours does NOT hurt the town.

Thats the breaks of standing out some. And assumes a binary use of PR's and NK's which I doubt would happen - I'm saying the chances of me getting chose for a PR are high due to today, not that every PR ever is going to hit every member of said alliance one by one and the scum twirling their mustaches are going to off us the night it happens.

So, what's the point, then, if it's not actually an "unbreakable alliance"?

I really don't get what you're trying to do here.

Mostly getting Sociopath lynched now and moving from there.

I think you're taking me far more serious than I am taking me and that's part of the issue.

Speaking of that since as fun as it is the two of us bashing our heads against this which its obvious neither will bend lets talk about that:

1.) Sociopath has came after me under the guise of anti-town behavior in not being interested in other games. However, he is currently voting Porkens for the sig issues - but didn't reference the fact that Porkens also expressed said "anti-town" sentiments.

2.) Unlike you who have at least came down and said you can see this as a scum move, Sociopath's "hunting" has been a case of looking for zebras and not horses as it were - the "sig-vig" because its a Tar setup (whcih its not), the implication of a myriad of enemy forces against us, the multi-setup being far more important than it is (which I can get into in detail but ultimately it's going to be moderately useful at the VERY BEST and actively unhelpful as a mean), etc.

3.) Sociopath posted AFTER said alliance came into place and didn't even bother to mention it. Or push on it. Which makes far more sense as waiting to guage reactions versus a town who would, one hope, come out with some fire against it.

----

Additionally, and this should come as no surprise, Mufasa confuses the hell out of me.

1.) Pushing for the DDD night kill.
2.) Pointing out a supposed "soft claim" from my posts for reasons I dont understand.
3.) Asking about opinions on SSK's game when sans lovers hasn't done anything in THIS game
4.) Suggesting not once, but twice, lynching players in a different subgame apparently simply because.
5.) Joining said alliance that has killing him as a #2 priority.

I dont know what to make of any of that.