/in-Vitational Game 5, Simon Mafia 2: Game Over before 832

[forbiddanlight]

Ah, I think I figured your vote was RVS, Elmo. Whereas Pat's was serious.

[Goatrevolt]

What about my vote, though?

[Mr. Flay]

Mr. Flay, I think I will need your presence for just a while longer. After that, please relieve Lucien from Sniper Seat #12.

Sure thing, boss.

Official Day One Vote Count #6

3 - Debonair Danny DiPietro (SpyreX, ZazieR, Lord Gurgi)
2 - Battousai (Nuwen, Elmo)
2 - ZazieR (Goatrevolt, Debonair Danny DiPietro)
1 - LlamaFluff (forbiddanlight)
1 - Lord Gurgi (Battousai)
1 - Nuwen (Patrick)
1 - SpyreX (TDC)
1 - TDC (LlamaFluff)

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch and

4

to lynch at deadline. Deadline is September 1, 10:00 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 0 - Nobody

~

0 - Blue
0 - Green
0 - Red
0 - Yellow

Not Locking – 12 – Battousai, Debonair Danny DiPietro, Elmo, forbiddanlight, Goatrevolt, LlamaFluff, Lord Gurgi, Nuwen, Patrick, SpyreX, TDC, ZazieR

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lock. Back-Up Floor is:

Red

.

[forbiddanlight]

What about my vote, though?

You explained it at least somewhat saying Zazie was the worst on the DDD wagon.

Wasn't the GREATEST reason, but it was one.

[Battousai]

goat- Do you not think that Zazie's vote reasoning was the same as what she quoted?

[SpyreX]

Greetings one and all, I hath returnedish and I am ready to party it up.

So, lets get this party started with the great topic of discussion: the bellhop claiming.

Facts (and a few facts I think have been missed/misinterpreted)

1.) The bellhop can use his power even on a locked floor.
2.) The person whom the bellhop hops over IS notified of his move.
3.) This movement occurs AFTER the night phase (morning).
4.) A locked floor grants total immunity to all players on locked floor.

So, from this:

1.) Barring super-secret mod-mechanics, a bellhop with the town protecting them is flat out invincible.
--- Considering the setup I am not banking on super-secret mod mechanics.
2.) A scum bellhop can not, by nature of what we've seen, "secretly" move people around. They will know they are moved.
--- This means that a scum bellhop couldn't "pretend" to do the towns wishes and do something else instead.
3.) The movement occurs after night so even if there is a scum bellhop that doesn't out himself it changes nothing about us protecting OUR bellhop.

With that said: I'm for the bellhop claim.

Lets break it down scenario wise:

1.) One claim / no CC.
--- Pretty much the best scenario. The only way this would be bad is if there is only A single scum bellhop and even then he is crippled.

2.) Claim / CC
--- Expected scenario. Guaranteed scum. Even if we're on the losing end of the 1-1 not terrible as the lynch mechanic is important and not the night actions if we lose the town bellhop.

3.) No claims
--- Scum bellhop. Not likely but if it happens we just watch who moves around and play normal type.

4.) 1000 claims.
--- Parse it out do some lynching get to scenario 2.

So, overall, I'm seeing town.

Now, for THE SCUMHUNTING:

Unvote, Vote: LLamaFluff

.

If your issue was simply wanting to play regularly versus breaking the setup why did you not intially say so versus putting up rationales that don't stand out as strong and THEN switching to the "scumhunting" stance?

[Goatrevolt]

goat- Do you not think that Zazie's vote reasoning was the same as what she quoted?

Sure, but I want him to explain it more. There is a specific reason why I find his vote ultra-scummy and I want to see how he fields my questions. Of course, fielding questions requires posting in the thread, a feat Zazie has failed to accomplish as of late.

So yeah...where is Zazie?

-------

SpyreX: What do you think about waiting a day to get bellhop claims, trying out my plan of shifting people to a safe floor in order to determine the nature of the bellhops we find ourselves up against, and then doing bellhop claims later?

So, if multiple people are being shuffled to the safe floor, then we don't need to out the bellhops as they are both acting pro-town. If nobody is being shuffled, or if people are being shuffled randomly, then we should get bellhop claims, and we would then know that we're probably dealing with 1 town 1 scum, or just 1 scum, or what have you.

Basically, it's what you suggested with the idea that first we determine the type of bellhoppery we find ourselves up against, and then afterward get bellhop claims.

[SpyreX]

The main issue I have with that is I dont expect in this group mentally deficient scum and, ultimately, until busted they'll play the bellhop like town which will turn into some fat-lylo mishaps.

However, it is not a fist-down kind of issue. I can float it with the caveat that we approach it tomorrow.

Further, lets broach the other issue all democratic-like. I say we use some common sense to lock a room for the day and do it soon.

So, what I propose (unless we have bellhops active) is simple. Everyone say who they think should be protected tonight. We reach a consensus, they say their bidness, claim a color and BOOM one good townie locked down.

Hint: Yourself isn't ever the right answer.

[forbiddanlight]

2.) Claim / CC
--- Expected scenario. Guaranteed scum. Even if we're on the losing end of the 1-1 not terrible as the lynch mechanic is important and not the night actions if we lose the town bellhop.

Why is scum guaranteed in this scenario? In a scenario with two bellhops, neither of them are necessarily scum or town.

Unless I'm missing something?

SpyreX: What do you think about waiting a day to get bellhop claims, trying out my plan of shifting people to a safe floor in order to determine the nature of the bellhops we find ourselves up against, and then doing bellhop claims later?

So, if multiple people are being shuffled to the safe floor, then we don't need to out the bellhops as they are both acting pro-town. If nobody is being shuffled, or if people are being shuffled randomly, then we should get bellhop claims, and we would then know that we're probably dealing with 1 town 1 scum, or just 1 scum, or what have you.

I like this from Goat

Hint: Yourself isn't ever the right answer.

Question: Why not? Aren't you the only one who knows your alignment? Now, I'll grant it's not a PRODUCTIVE answer, but why are we townhunting in this scenario?

[LlamaFluff]

If your issue was simply wanting to play regularly versus breaking the setup why did you not intially say so versus putting up rationales that don't stand out as strong and THEN switching to the "scumhunting" stance?

Kind of a lip service type thing. Its a concrete way of going about things that is not going to attempt to break the game and just leaves as much as possible about the setup in the dark. Then we can actually play mafia, not 'solve the puzzle'. If I wanted to play 'solve the puzzle' I would go get a puzzle book.

[SpyreX]

@FL:

Productivity is the answer. The lock mechanic lends itself to townhunting, as it were.

@LF:

Even if this ALL works its not "breaking the setup". Its eliminating the scum-power ploy if it exists with the bellhop AND putting that power right in the towns hands. Its not follow the cop, its keep the towny alive.

[Goatrevolt]

Llama, this isn't "solve the puzzle, while ignoring scumhunting". Doing this will just allow us to supplement scumhunting with puzzle pieces, as opposed to doing nothing and supplementing scumhunting with...also nothing...

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice your idealized mafia game if it will give us a greater chance of winning. If bending the setup in our favor is going to help the town win, I don't see how you can possibly justify not doing it.

[LlamaFluff]

Even if this ALL works its not "breaking the setup". Its eliminating the scum-power ploy if it exists with the bellhop AND putting that power right in the towns hands. Its not follow the cop, its keep the towny alive.

Llama, this isn't "solve the puzzle, while ignoring scumhunting". Doing this will just allow us to supplement scumhunting with puzzle pieces, as opposed to doing nothing and supplementing scumhunting with...also nothing...

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice your idealized mafia game if it will give us a greater chance of winning. If bending the setup in our favor is going to help the town win, I don't see how you can possibly justify not doing it.

I dont play break the setup or anything like that. Its part of the reason I tend to actually not like playing open/semi-open games as much. Too much time is spend on setup and not enough is spent on scumhunting. I could care less about trying to break the game on setup or anything like that, I play much much worse when that is the majority of what is going on, I start lurking because im not interested, it just really drags down my ability to be a part of the game.

~~~

For about my last idea on the game speculation. I either like playing it random, or just saying "bellhop move all players to floor X" and continually locking it down. No scum can fake bellhop after that.

[forbiddanlight]

@FL:

Productivity is the answer. The lock mechanic lends itself to townhunting, as it were.

Fair. But way to not address other concerns.

[Goatrevolt]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide names with quotes (or at least make it clear who you are quoting).

[SpyreX]

It was at me.

WHAT other concerns? That we, in fact, pick a scum that is playing the towniest game that ever towned and thusly he cant...be....?'d

And voting for yourself wouldn't create ties and/or more information to look at when the game progresses as well as being, ultimately, counterproductive.

So yea still not sure what huge negative we would get from locking via the towniest player (thus forcing a less than optimal kill assuming all other factors equal).

[forbiddanlight]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide names with quotes (or at least make it clear who you are quoting).

That's a pain in the ass. I'd rather not. If you aren't paying enough attention to know who I'm quoting, then you aren't paying enough attention.

WHAT other concerns? That we, in fact, pick a scum that is playing the towniest game that ever towned and thusly he cant...be....?'d

What does this have to do with anything? I was talking about your false dichotomy that with 2 bellhops at least one is scum.

And voting for yourself wouldn't create ties and/or more information to look at when the game progresses as well as being, ultimately, counterproductive.

This was covered. I agree with you.

So yea still not sure what huge negative we would get from locking via the towniest player (thus forcing a less than optimal kill assuming all other factors equal).

I missed something here?

[Patrick]

@Goat, reading your plan, it actually makes pretty good sense and I think I could be on board with it. One thing that could be a problem is a scum bellhop potentially moving scumbuddies off the safe floor without us knowing (doesn't really screw the whole thing up, but we'd need to be aware of this when making assumptions).

Llama, can you link to a past situation where you've taken a similar stance towards setups?
Elmo, what was the point of your last question? Did the answer surprise you?
Nuwen, thinking about it, your reasoning for finding my behaviour slightly town is similar to what I thought about Batt's first few posts. Do you think his initial vote was an easy location for a scum vote?

At this point, I feel I have very little in the way of reads on people, and I think it's partly due to the slow start of the game and partly because most of our talk recently has been about mechanics. By all means give your opinions on this plan so we can decide whether to move forward with it or not, but we need to be pushing other lines of enquiry at the same time.

Mod

: Did Zazier get prodded? His avoiding the thread is getting kind of ridiculous.

[LlamaFluff]

Llama, can you link to a past situation where you've taken a similar stance towards setups?

This game is a good example. It became mostly 'follow the PR' starting D3, I lost just about all interest, stopped having fun and lurked for the majority of the game.

[SpyreX]

If we have at least two claims AND they all end up town I'll eat all the hats.

It's just not happening. Especially considering the mechanics involved in this game (bellhop chain-protection wagon hoo).

As an aside: am I missing something or does the lock room serve to give the town a huge advantage at night? Early on its, assuming normal distribution, 2-3 townies that have doc protection and the scum have NO idea who.

That's almost enough to make me rethink my whole town-protection scheme but probably not. I'd have to crunch numbers but we'll see.

[Goatrevolt]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide names with quotes (or at least make it clear who you are quoting).

That's a pain in the ass. I'd rather not. If you aren't paying enough attention to know who I'm quoting, then you aren't paying enough attention.

Meh. It takes 3 seconds, and while I know who you're quoting now, it's a pain in the ass down the line if I'm trying to read you in isolation and have no clue who you're going back and forth with. I have a good memory, sometimes freakishly good, but I can't remember every single post made in a game. It's just an extra unnecessary hassle.

Anyway, it's not ultimately a huge deal, just a pet peeve of mine. This is the last I'll say about it.

[TDC]

Okay.

The plan is to have a claimed bellhop, lock his floor, and have him shuffle pro-town players into his floor.

I see two problems:

1. A scum bellhop could move said bellhop out of the floor, thus making all the work void.
Solution: We only let one bellhop claim and agree that any other town bellhop targets the claimed one and moves him into the floor he already is on, thus making it impossible to move him way.

2. The claimed bellhop might be scum.
Solution: We agree that once the game is reduced to all people being on the safe floor, but not over, to lynch the claimed bellhop.

Of course, if we only have one town bellhop, all this is going to fail anyway.
If we do notice that contrary to 1 the bellhop got moved, we keep safe flooring him and hunt for the (then necessarily existing) scum bellhop.

[TDC]

In the latter case I would agree with a colour claim, because there might be information in where the bellhop got moved.

I still don't really see the advantages of colour claiming otherwise though.

[forbiddanlight]

Meh. It takes 3 seconds, and while I know who you're quoting now, it's a pain in the ass down the line if I'm trying to read you in isolation and have no clue who you're going back and forth with. I have a good memory, sometimes freakishly good, but I can't remember every single post made in a game. It's just an extra unnecessary hassle.

Anyway, it's not ultimately a huge deal, just a pet peeve of mine. This is the last I'll say about it.

Thank you. There is FINALLY a logical argument for why I should tag my quotes. I'll try to do it more, but I will state there are times I'll forget.

I think TDC's analysis of the situation is a good one.

In which case, I guess it's time for me to do this...

I'm a bellhop *dramatic music*

[TDC]

I would've preferred if we had a consensus on this first, but whatever.

I would suggest that no other bellhop claims unless we have decided that that'd be a good idea (I think it isn't).