Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[Fuzzyman]

I disagree.

- A second vote is a lot more pressure than a single vote IMO. I don't see how you can think otherwise.
- Having people agree with my line of thought makes me more certain.

- This is true, but the

overall

little amount of pressure created at L-5 shouldn't be enough to push you one way or another in your decision where to place your vote.

- In other words bandwagon thinking. Which is scummy.

Who are the second and third scummiest people, in your opinion?

[Snow_Bunny]

Mod: I'm having serious connection problems, so I'm a bit of LA for now. I'll try to fix this as soon as possible.

[Josh Lyman]

@Mod, two questions.

Supposing Josh does have the ability he claims:

1. If he targets someone tonight who is targeted for a kill, is that player killed or treestumped?

2. If he treestumps someone tonight who has an investigative role, does that player get the results of their action?

1. Kill actions trump stumping, so if I target someone who is also targeted for a kill, they are

killed dead

and can't post anymore.

2. Answer refused, with apologies.

Also, in regard to order of action: If I target someone, and they have an action, they will still perform their action.

[Netopalis]

Wait a minute....So if someone were to NK someone you stumped, they'd then be unable to post?

[Josh Lyman]

Wait a minute....So if someone were to NK someone you stumped, they'd then be unable to post?

1. Kill actions trump stumping, so if I target someone who is also targeted for a kill, they are

killed dead

and can't post anymore.

I'm quoting rather than rephrasing, as I just don't know how to make it any more clear.

[Netopalis]

I mean on a subsequent day.

[Josh Lyman]

I mean on a subsequent day.

My interpretation is that if I target someone, they are dead for game purposes, and thus cannot be NKed later, as they are

already dead.

Do you want me to ask?

[Netopalis]

Yeah, please do, because that's one big assumption I was making too.

[BloodCovenent]

I mean on a subsequent day.

My interpretation is that if I target someone, they are dead for game purposes, and thus cannot be NKed later, as they are

already dead.

Do you want me to ask?

Then how the hell do we kill them?

[Netopalis]

That's what I was trying to say. Essentially, if I read Lyman's role right, he creates an unnightkillable confirmed townie without a vote or else kills a mafia

[BloodCovenent]

That's what I was trying to say. Essentially, if I read Lyman's role right, he creates an unnightkillable confirmed townie without a vote or else kills a mafia

the way that I read this claim, is that he is even unlynchable.

[imaginality]

Okay, after reading the last few pages:

Mod: Please prod ConfidAnon and Locke Lamore.

*

Netopalis, I think you underestimate the benefit that an extra lynch gives us. Two more flips (the extra lynch and extra NK) before lylo is a pretty significant amount of further information for us to base the lylo lynch(es) on, even aside from the statistical advantage. He should definitely be targeting scum with it.

Whether Josh uses his power tonight or a later night and whether it's directed or at his discretion, I don't have a strong opinion on, and it depends at least partly on how many scummy-looking players we have at the end of the day.

Josh's last sentence in post 202 implies that tree-stumping is the final action of the night. Which is a shame that it can't work to block scum making a kill or killing someone.

Josh, another question worth asking the mod: if your target is night-killed, do you retain the ability to tree-stump someone? If you lose it (and therefore can't prove your role), then the argument for your target not being directed in advance becomes stronger.

*

Even after his explanation in 125, Budja's theory that SnowBunny showed towniness by not going for the easy wagon doesn't make much sense to me. Scum love the chance to lead town into deciding between two townies for the lynch.

*

BloodCovenant seemed overly worried about the possibility of a scum plot with the treestump role. I don't see it. I will say this though, Josh proving his role by stumping someone doesn't equal Josh proving his alignment. BC's posts and thoughts sound genuine though, if not always on the money. I have a town read on him. Actually the thing I like about this game so far is I have quite a few town reads on people already which I trust more than my scum reads.

*

I notice a couple of people (Netopalis, Budja) expressed suspicions of Locke Lamora. Net's was gut, Budja's was meta. Budja, can you explain your meta suspicion?

*


And now for something completely different

Vote: jasonT1981

, a pressure vote to encourage him to do what he said he would.

[imaginality]

That's what I was trying to say. Essentially, if I read Lyman's role right, he creates an unnightkillable confirmed townie without a vote or else kills a mafia

The way I read it is that the targeted player is just as dead as if they'd been night-killed, except they can post. (Imagine a ruleset applying to that player alone which says, "After you die you can make unlimited 'bah' posts and these can contain content.")

[BloodCovenent]

That's what I was trying to say. Essentially, if I read Lyman's role right, he creates an unnightkillable confirmed townie without a vote or else kills a mafia

The way I read it is that the targeted player is just as dead as if they'd been night-killed, except they can post. (Imagine a ruleset applying to that player alone which says, "After you die you can make unlimited 'bah' posts and these can contain content.")

A player that is unkillable just seems unbalanced to me.

I think I asked this before, what happens in LYLO situations? What if the stump is scum..

Or this, what I said earlier.

I'm beginning to not like this claim....

What if we're in MyLo, and a scum is "treestumped," and there is 1 full scum 1 TS scum VS. two townies. That doesn't seem like a logical play for the moderator to let that happen.

[Netopalis]

The player wouldn't affect numbers for the purposes of declaring a win condition because the only reason that we have preempting win conditions is that they simply reach the conclusion which has already been decided. If that player can't vote, they couldn't vote in the hypothetical situations either, and they don't count for either side.

*shrugs* I guess that you folks do have a point, though. I still maintain that it would be useful, but will grumble silently to myself in the corner.

[BloodCovenent]

The player wouldn't affect numbers for the purposes of declaring a win condition because the only reason that we have preempting win conditions is that they simply reach the conclusion which has already been decided. If that player can't vote, they couldn't vote in the hypothetical situations either, and they don't count for either side.

*shrugs* I guess that you folks do have a point, though. I still maintain that it would be useful, but will grumble silently to myself in the corner.

I also get this feeling that you seem to know a lot about this "claim" with what little we have gotten from Josh, and from the mod.

[Netopalis]

It's called reading the relevant Wiki article.

[Budja]

@imaginality,

I played with Locke in Dexter Mafia and he had a very similar playstyle, generally only asking questions passively and lurking a lot.

[Budja]

...and this "treestump" debate has gone on for far too long.

The way I read it is that the targeted player is just as dead as if they'd been night-killed, except they can post. (Imagine a ruleset applying to that player alone which says, "After you die you can make unlimited 'bah' posts and these can contain content.")

This sums up what will in all certainty happen to a stumped player.

[BloodCovenent]

It's called reading the relevant Wiki article.

You can't take everything from the Wiki as guaranteed in this game, mods may look there for ideas, and change up the role on their own. Don't assume it's a set in stone role.

[Netopalis]

And that's why we've been asking Lyman to answer questions, no?

[imaginality]

...and this "treestump" debate has gone on for far too long.

QFT. Clearing up the details (self-targeting, night/day action, order priorities etc., and my question above too) was/is important, but the actual effect of JL's power was clear from:

the player I would choose would be dead for all game purposes, it says, except still being able to talk in the thread.

Also, re. Locke Lamora, I just skim-isoed all Locke Lamora's other non-newbie games and I see what you mean. Early days still, but I'll be keeping a close eye on him.

[ortolan]

Ninth vote count

Budja (5): Josh Lyman, Snow Bunny, BloodCovenent, Netopalis, Fuzzyman
Josh Lyman (1): Chinaman
BloodCovenent (1): Budja
Snow_Bunny (1): jasonT1981
jasonT1981 (1): imaginality

Not voting (3): ConfidAnon, Locke Lamora

7 to lynch

Your V/LA is noted Snowbunny. I have prodded ConfidAnon and Locke Lamora as per imaginality's request.

[Josh Lyman]

Apparently, once a player has been stumped, they can still be killed and thus have to stop talking. This is what I was told; it seems contradictory to me, but I will have to go back this evening and re-read some thread and some PMs.

[MacavityLock]

@mod

, I am currently voting for Neto, but neither my vote nor my name are listed in the vote count.