Monkey Island Mafia - Day one

[Bobacino]

Im game for a laugh, but I don't think Ambic should go first. I believe that the questioning will get increasingly strategic and clever the more practice we have. I think that we should target Ambic say, fourth or fifth, when our interrogation skills get up to scratch (im not saying that Ambic has anything to hide but I think that it would be negligent to allow the possibility for the iniator of the idea to have an easy ride).

Alternatively, why don't we just bandwagon like we normally do on Day 1?

[jeep]

Ambic, it's just better to simply reveal roles... and that is generally NOT a good idea.

-JEEP

[cuban smoker]

I've always wondered about ideas like that. You see, I was trying out a 4 player game of mafia, without a moderator (played IRL). We had 1 mafia, 1 cop, 1 doctor, and 1 role-blocker. It occurred to us very quickly that we had to make a rule that people just couldn't go: "I'm the cop", "I'm the doc", etc. Because the mafia would have to pick one of the 3 claims, and then half the town is guranteed innocent.

Thus, in a game with known roles, all of which are named, it became a obviously good move to claim roles first thing.

However, in a game like this, where everyone probably has a role, but none are explicitly named (except from the theme source), we would have an interesting result. Granted, much of the fun would be removed, but would it really hurt the town?

Anyway, I withdraw my support from the torture chair. I've just always wanted to pyschologically interrogate someone.

[Gaspode]

I agree with Jeep. Doing that would give the mafia too much information, and it would not ensure 100% that we'd expose scum. In fact, since there's really nothing better to go on (this is Day 1, after all), I'll

unvote: Pim, vote: Ambic

.

[Totem]

Next 72 h will be super busy for me, but I will try to check the forum.
Don't like the idea of "all tell all", Let's press next person. And maybe lynch someone.

[Quailman]

I have another helpful idea:

unvote: whoever; vote: ambic

[Antrax]

While I still maintain amb's idea sucks, I think voting for him for making a bad suggestion is not a good strategy. I raved about it in minvitational 3. Lynching people because you disagree with them just causes lurking to be more appealing, and thus is damaging. Vote for people because they're suspicious, not for suggesting ideas openly to be challenged.
(my role does not affiliate me with amb's role)
Antrax

[mneme]

I agree that a formal interogation of the entire game on day one seems...unreasonable. And likely not to produce useful results, though it would keep the town from tripping over our own feet, which is fairly important in a game where it seems like many characters have fairly useful/powerful roles (and where we only -seem- to have one or two killing groups, given the low death toll on night one) .

OTOH, I think Ambic's adoption of the strategy on that level indicates innocence, not complicity (though to be fair, pirates are notoriously democratic -- not LeChuck's crew, though!)

So I'm not going to vote for him right now. I'm much more intersted in voting for one of the "I don't want to give out any information, I just want to kill someone" folks.

unvote: cuban smoker
vote: quailman

[mneme]

er...that would be:

unvote: cuban smoker
vote: quailman

[Cadmium]

The current, quite impressive, very official vote count:

5 Pim (Kelvin, Antrax, Beaudoin, Totem, DAW)
2 Ralphmerridew (Cuban Smoker, Rite)
2 Ambic (Gaspode, Quailman)
1 Cuban Smoker (Darkblade)
1 Darkblade (Rubberduck)
1 Antrax (Polotet)
1 Kelvin (Pim)
1 Quailman (Mneme)

~~

marker

~~

13 to lynch, no deadline yet.

Totem, could you please pay some attention to your voting. First you unvoted Darkblade while your vote wasn't even on him. Then you voted for Pim without unvoting Cuban Smoker. This makes it more difficult for us to get the vote count right.

I also wanted to let you guys know that I've been having the flew for three days. So I probably won't check the forums that much. Thank God for multiple mods .

[ralphmerridew]

Sorry I've been fairly quiet; I managed to frotz up the browser on my home system, and haven't been out on the internet as much these past few days.

Reading for Pim:
Past: 5 of cups (reversed): Despite adversity, Pim has recently recovered.
Present: Wheel of Fortune (reversed): Bad luck & unpleasant surprises
Future: 7 of cups (reversed): False hope

The interpretation of WoF appears to refer to the fact that Pim has gotten bandwagoned, and the interpretation of 7C appears to mean that, on the track things are going, s/he hopes to avoid being lynched, but that hope will be in vain. So the big question is whether or not we should try to change that path, and the key to deciding that lies in learning Pim's role, and we must glean that from the past.

Unfortunately, the past is unclear. Certainly LeChuck has recently recovered against adversity, but that could also refer to Guybrush's trials and triumph in the most recent game.

Anybody familiar with the games enough to know if any other character went through similar trials?

[Bobacino]

I am unclear as to what you are talking about, to be honest, ralph. Is that a tarot read you're doing? Whats WoF?...... *Confused*

[mneme]

It's a Wheel of Fortune, though I have no idea what he's on about.

[Bobacino]

Wheel of fortune?..... right.... Ralph, could you clarify yourself for me please? To me you're talking babble. Is that role related?

[ralphmerridew]

I believe that I am the master (read: only practitioner) of interpreting Tarot card readings into Mafia terminology. I drew three cards for Pim. The five of cups normally indicates sorrow; when reversed, it means a recent upturn. Similarly with the other two cards.

If you aren't familiar with my readings, it's because I don't do them too often; the last one I did was in Harry Potter Mafia back in August or so, and this is the first I've done on mafiascum.

(Actually, I did some readings for some AIM games, but those aren't recorded, and I don't remember exactly when they fell.)

[Totem]

Totem, could you please pay some attention ...

Sorry, will try. I am used to different forum and every time I press "B" button here it messes up my post.

[Bobacino]

Fair enough Ralph. What's my reading?

[ralphmerridew]

I haven't done your reading yet; only Pim's. I post readings as soon as I finish them.

[ambic]

Bah I refuse to play against Tarot cards. The only thing predictable about tarot cards is that they arent.

Vote ralphmerridew

And to those voting me because Im trying to alter the game away from day 1 stupidity -

I place you on notice of suspicion

.

[Beaudoin]

So...you vote for ralph for using a bad/faulty method in a game of mafia, and then you FOS everyone who votes for you for suggesting a bad/faulty method? Why does this not make much sense to me?

[ambic]

Im fossing those that dont like my suggestion which actively tries to participate in the games.

ralphmerridew insists on random cards, or appealing to spiritual forces for the sake of a mafia game. One is poor play, and the other is sheer stupidity. Im sorry ralphmerridew but why play around with spiritual type things for the sake of a mere mafia game....

[Beaudoin]

I can see your point. However, I don't think that your interrogation chair would necessarily encourage discussion as much as force it. And you can't really force silent players to add much to the discussion.

[Pim]

I don't think Ralph is playing with a full deck...
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.
Seriously though, is this a clever way of sparking conversation or is it a requirement for a role? I've never played Monkey Island, but it sounds like it might have that kind of character. If it isn't a role requirement, it darn well should be.

Ambic: How would we benefit from having everyone expose themselves early in the game? The only way I can see we would come out ahead is if a scum claimed a named role that someone else could refute. I don't see why they'd make that mistake, so what is the benefit beyond stirring things up?

[Antrax]

I have seen ralphmerridew do the tarot thing in the past (and for the record, he doesn't like to be called Ralph).
amb, I'm at a loss as to why you think people who disagree with you are suspicious. Mayhap you didn't explain your idea well enough?
Antrax

[Beaudoin]

I don't think it's people who disagree with him, but rather people who are voting for him because they don't like the idea. I can understand that, you're not suspicious because you bring up a bad play idea. At least, not suspicious enough to vote for (hey, everyone's suspicious this early in the game).