Mafia 102: No-Frills Game Thread(Town wins!)

[Sando]

Ok, personally, my initial reaction to the 'no-lynch' movement was 'what, no lynch is a terrible idea!!'. The more I thought about it, the more I could see the point, but I'm still not sold on it being broken for town. However, I'm very concerned with the lack of opposition it got until Crypto. While I can see the appeal, I would have expected at least some wariness regarding the plan.

Chance of Jailkeeper and Scum targetting the same person would seem to be 1/16, assuming they both submit that is. It would be 1 in 256 if it was to be on a specific person. But since there is a 100% chance that the jailkeeper protects someone, the odds are basically whether scum picks out the 1 person in 16 they chose.

If we no-lynch 3 times, scum have a 1/16 + 1/15 + 1/14 chance if hitting the cop. To me, looks like ~20% chance to hit the cop in one of the 3 nights.

I'm not really sure how discussion is bad, even if we were to no-lynch. We have 1 investigation, they have 1 kill, that we might be able to stop. The only downside to discussion is the idea that scum will work out who the cop is. Town on the other hand has 3 people to find, so better odds of them screwing up. Also, scum are looking for a townie acting townie, or cagey, or what? Town are merely looking for scum acting scummy.

We have a 'free' no-lynch, but this would get wiped out by the jail-keeper saving someone. Not sure would should use it now.

---------------------

Super Accurate* Vote Count(as of post 100):

CSL - 2(mask man, hiphop)
crypto - 1(EtherealCookie)
mask man - 1(Sando)
No Lynch - 3(SerialClergyman, CSL, Kaiveran)
hiphop - 1(charter)
SerialClergyman - 1(crypto)

Not Voting:le Chat, X_~, Staple, Team Aether, bigmc109, Pomegranate, muh316

crypto: I believe that your vote change was the only one on that page. Not much trouble at all.

*Not guaranteed to be accurate.

[EtherealCookie]

What's there to comment on? Mafia seems screwed, honestly, with this ratio.

Are you admitting that you are scum?

How is that admitting to be scum? Assuming makes an ass out of u and me.

Good to see EtherealCookie (obvious scum) getting more widespread publicity. Post 88 is vaguely icky, too. One down, two to gooo!

You're a bit too confident.

scummy for someone not voting no lynch.

Not really.

[SerialClergyman]

Scummy for someone not voting no lynch? My sweet life, Sir. Do I even have to say anything here? It looks slightly defeatist, but you have the wrong reasons here. What next? "You are FoSing them, why don't you vote them? I think you're scum!"
No maybe that isn't the best example. Well, I was expecting that to flow together right so I could just note 'not to mention it makes you seem to eager for an NL by pushing him.', but i'm tired atm.

Nope - scummy because he suggests that the town are screwed due to the ratio of town to scum, which to me looks specifically like he's referring to the no lynch + investigation plan that he's not actualy voting.

a) I don't agree that the scum are screwed based on the setup
b) I don't see any reason to suggest that they are as town. I get whinging scum rather than gloating town from that comment.
c) If someone had that viewpoint I'd be expecting them to be voting No Lynch, which he wasn't.

[EtherealCookie]

Think about it. Sixteen players, thirteen of which are town. That's 81.25%. Unless my math's off (not my forte, honestly), mafia's quickest route to victory is five consecutive days with mis-lynches coupled with five consecutive nights with successful kills, at which point three goons endgame three townies. That's one tall feat, and even then it's worst case scenario for the town—it'd require a massive meltdown, months of utterly demented scum hunting.

And it's even tougher when you factor in no-lynches, which would, what, double the number of days it'd take?

I agree with this. Why would I want to vote No Lynch in the first place? All it's going to do is prolong the game. Why not place some pressure on people, and see what we can get of them? Voting No Lynch and watching the scum kill one every night would be amazingly boring and slow, and wouldn't give us much to figure out who they are.

[bigmc109]

Think about it. Sixteen players, thirteen of which are town. That's 81.25%. Unless my math's off (not my forte, honestly), mafia's quickest route to victory is five consecutive days with mis-lynches coupled with five consecutive nights with successful kills, at which point three goons endgame three townies. That's one tall feat, and even then it's worst case scenario for the town—it'd require a massive meltdown, months of utterly demented scum hunting.

And it's even tougher when you factor in no-lynches, which would, what, double the number of days it'd take?

I agree with this. Why would I want to vote No Lynch in the first place? All it's going to do is prolong the game. Why not place some pressure on people, and see what we can get of them? Voting No Lynch and watching the scum kill one every night would be amazingly boring and slow, and wouldn't give us much to figure out who they are.

....I think the point was that we do both.

[SerialClergyman]

....I think the point was that we do both.

Discussion doesn't come out of a vacuum. If we KNOW we're going to no lynch, talking won't mean much. You need the threat of an imminent lynch to force the hunting. I'm happy with discussion, and I'm happy with lynching people, but discussing amongst ourselves if we all know the result will be a no lynch is just wasting time, imho.

[Kaiveran]

Sorry for the long wait, got distracted by Cafe World.

I don't care to quote and pick apart every single post at this point in the game, so I'll just post my mullings:

I think bigmc has the best strategy so far. However, I think it's effectiveness might only reach as far as day 3 or 4, and by then, like crypto said, we'll have a tense situation on our hands by then. As such, we should be as active as possible and go through the normal mafia-hunting, but only lynch if we are

reasonably

convinced that our target is mafia (I'd say 55% or so.)

I wouldn't put stock in cop readings either, for the main reason that our cop is very likely to be insane. In fact, I'm 90% sure of it.

1. I haven't done the research for myself, but according to player accounts, Scigatt seems to be the type of mod who likes to throw unexpected twists at players,
2. The odds are stacked against mafia, as detailed by crypto,
3. The mod's possible Freudian slip, and
4. The simple fact that this is a Normal Game, and the mod doesn't have to tell us anything that he doesn't want.

Plus, the only way he can be protected is via the Jailkeeper, who negates his ability. So we have a bunch of potentially wrong readings and no way to get more. This basically reduces the usefulness of the cop to zero.

A useless cop, and a Jailkeeper who can't block NK's; This is basically a vanilla game plus a Medic. Townies are alone. We'd best get down to business.

[SerialClergyman]

Speaking of which, etheral cookie just did it again. He just agreed that it's hard for the scum and that a no lynch play will make it even harder on them but

isn't

in favour of a no lynch.

I like the no lynch plan charter, but I like epic page 5 scumreads more.

unvote, vote etheral cookie

[Kaiveran]

oh, and

unvote

[crypto]

I guess I'll just come out and say it—it looked to me like Serial was hesitantly busing Ethereal (seeing as we know Ethereal is scum).

Mask, I'm confused; are you saying you think Charter is scum, or just that we should be careful not to be sheep? Who or what is the "bad cookie"?

Also note crypto's little comment on his voting speed. I'm not worried about it too much because he seems a little too good to fuck up like that.

I was joking. I tend to jump around a lot early on.

---

You're a bit too confident.

I was only half serious . . . I do think you're the scummiest, though. I'll put on my serious hat now, seeing as we're progressing out of RVS so quickly. On the other hand, this quote is fueling the fire.

How is that admitting to be scum? Assuming makes an ass out of u and me.

Being an ass has nothing to do with being scum.

In this game Ethereal posts broken rhetoric. Doesn't really seem to be invested in the game, or paying attention to it (see post 103). Of course, that says nothing of his alignment.

---

SerialClergyman, can you please do me a great big favor and answer any of the questions I've asked you?

[hiphop]

What? . . . No, the town gets what the most players want, and the most players want the action that is best supported with a clear logic. Our average scumbag would probably go with the flow for a little while to see how things unfold. Sort of like what you did. Some scum (usually ultra-confident pros) might take a proactive stance, but not most.

What makes you an expert on what scum would do? You said go with the flow. If that was the case, I would of voted no lynch.

Why didn't you point out pros and cons before? Electing not to do so is anti-information. Plus, these two bits are both cons. Could you give a pro or two, for argument's sake?

Right here:

However, if we just straight no lynch for a few (2-3) days, without discussion, then I don't see how scum can kill the cop other than random, and that's an extremely long shot, whereas the chance of the cop investigating a scum or two is much better.

So basically me giving the cons would destroy the biggest pro, because people would argue, and that would be discussion. So it was best for me not to comment, because I didn't care which way the town went.

That isn't good enough, unfortunately. At this point in the game, keeping secrets "for the good of the town" is secondary to sharing information (unless of course you're outing role info).

So you would rather I ruin the gambit, than to remain silent.

Oh, and I've only played on this site. Two newbie games and two mini normals.

On this site it is best to look at my wiki. Links to all completed games.

How 'bout dem rapid vote switches, Scigatt?

Did you not notice the awesome sig he gave me and you at the top of page 3 and 4 respectively?

I agree with this. Why would I want to vote No Lynch in the first place? All it's going to do is prolong the game. Why not place some pressure on people, and see what we can get of them? Voting No Lynch and watching the scum kill one every night would be amazingly boring and slow, and wouldn't give us much to figure out who they are.

I answer this quote with this one. Contradicting yourself already.

unvote
vote EtherealCookie

If we no-lynch 3 times, scum have a 1/16 + 1/15 + 1/14 chance if hitting the cop. To me, looks like ~20% chance to hit the cop in one of the 3 nights.

If we lynch all three nights we have a 3/16 +3/14+3/12 of hitting scum. To me it looks like we have over 60% chance of hitting scum.

Discussion doesn't come out of a vacuum. If we KNOW we're going to no lynch, talking won't mean much. You need the threat of an imminent lynch to force the hunting. I'm happy with discussion, and I'm happy with lynching people, but discussing amongst ourselves if we all know the result will be a no lynch is just wasting time, imho.

Somebody give this guy some cake.

[bigmc109]

@ SerialClergyman: I didn't say that we should definetely 100% no lynch, I said that if 9 of us truly don't believe someone is guilty we should no lynch.

Also, I've reread EC's last post about 5 times and I have no idea what you mean. Care to elaborate?

[mask man]

suggests that the

town

are screwed due to the ratio of town to scum

c) If someone had that viewpoint I'd be expecting them to be voting No Lynch, which he wasn't.

1. WAT
2. Like I said, he doesn't need to be voting NL like a mindless zombie like everyone else. Even I'm not dumb enough to just go for something without talking.

[bigmc109]

(again, @ SC): OK, hiphop's link helped me see where you were going with your vote, but I'm weary of voting the newbie a few days into the game based on some stupid/contradictory stuff he said (crypto knows what I'm talkin about....)

[SerialClergyman]

SerialClergyman, can you please do me a great big favor and answer any of the questions I've asked you?

What do I think of Ether? Read above.

Why is ostensibly good enough for me? Because barring major complications it's a good plan. We have limited information and it's certainly not fullproof but I like it. I liked it more before I read Kaiv's post above which also made a lot of sense, however. If you assume sane cop, I see no reason not to No Lynch, really. A cop investigation is like a lynch but if you're wrong noone dies, and instead you get a confirmed innocent. So if we had 16 people and lynched 3 times, we'd be on 10 people. If we had 3 investigates, we'd be on 13 people AND any mishits are confirmed townies. It's just better than lynching, even if the chance to hit scum is the same.

The only problem is sanity. Perhaps one possibility is for the cop to self-investigate, but that will only catch a paranoid cop.

[mask man]

crypto: It was more of an observation. I thought the 'cookie' reference would be seen a little better. Specially by you. Ethereal COOOOOOKIEEEE.

[EtherealCookie]

Right, I am confused. Why are people voting for me? I can't get anything out of your posts, honestly. How am I contradicting myself, Mr. Spiderman Avatar?

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry, I obviously meant town in that quote.

The condensed version of why Etheral COokie is scummy -

He:
1) Thinks that the scum will struggle.
2) Thinks that the no lynch plan will make it even harder for scum
3) Is not voting for and is actually against a no lynch.

Doesn't make sense as town. Also, sounds like scum whinging rather than town gloating when discussing the situation.

You're welcome to have your reservations about voting EC for whatever reason, including lack of experience, but he's done enough for my vote atm.

[mask man]

I think EC is anti-town, not scum. I was agreeing up until 3. I'm sure there are others against it :\

[EtherealCookie]

1) Thinks that the scum will struggle.
2) Thinks that the no lynch plan will make it even harder for scum
3) Is not voting for and is actually against a no lynch.

1) Yes, the ratio seems like scum will struggle.
2) When did I say that? I said that a no lynch would give us very little to discuss, and we'd just watch the mafia kill off a person one by one at night.
3) Well, that's explained by the above.

[crypto]

Thanks for highlighting your EtherealCookie thing, Serial. I am blind.

Mask: See above.

What makes you an expert on what scum would do?

I'm Dr. House, obviously. Also, my name bears resemblance to cryptic messages. We can infer that I'm always right about everything. If you have anything critical to say about me, shut up, because you are without a doubt

wrong

.

You said go with the flow. If that was the case, I would of voted no lynch.

Or you would have lain low for a moment. But, yeah, this is a good point.

Did you not notice the awesome sig he gave me and you at the top of page 3 and 4 respectively?

Haha, he's just using the first post of each page to drop vote counts. It has nothing to do with rate of vote change.

Guys, time to cut the crap with the numbers. We can decide whether or not to lynch when we are ready to decide whether or not to lynch.

Speaking of which:

Scigatt, is there a set deadline? If so, when?

(crypto knows what I'm talkin about....)

But wait. You were scum in that game. Newbie lynch benefited you.

Oh, cool! That must mean you're town in this one. *mental note* Or were you really frustrated that game to, simply because it was a stupid move in general? Which means that your opinions in this game and in that one are consistent. Therefore, you are scum. Again.

[SerialClergyman]

I think EC is anti-town, not scum. I was agreeing up until 3. I'm sure there are others against it :\

Not agreeing with it is fine IF you think it won't be effective. If you think it's a good idea that would help the town win and are against it, how do you justify that position?

[SerialClergyman]

EC, you agreed that the no lynch would make it easier for the town in this post.

Think about it. Sixteen players, thirteen of which are town. That's 81.25%. Unless my math's off (not my forte, honestly), mafia's quickest route to victory is five consecutive days with mis-lynches coupled with five consecutive nights with successful kills, at which point three goons endgame three townies. That's one tall feat, and even then it's worst case scenario for the town—it'd require a massive meltdown, months of utterly demented scum hunting.

And it's even tougher when you factor in no-lynches, which would, what, double the number of days it'd take?

I agree with this. Why would I want to vote No Lynch in the first place? All it's going to do is prolong the game. Why not place some pressure on people, and see what we can get of them? Voting No Lynch and watching the scum kill one every night would be amazingly boring and slow, and wouldn't give us much to figure out who they are.

[bigmc109]

SC, my main problem is with your point #2. Where did he say or imply that no lynch would be harder for scum?

[crypto]

Serial, it's a stretch to use my words against Ethereal. When I say I agree with someone, I don't necessarily mean every last line. Plus, people tend to quote more than they should.