Dynamite Stick Mafia! GAME OVER

[LoudmouthLee]

DYNAMITE: OOBA

[LoudmouthLee]

or...

DYNAMITE: OOBA

[/b]

[LoudmouthLee]

There, bluff called. Please note the goading of Adel and Quagmire if all else fails.

Godspeed.

[Adel]

Assuming I am alive tomorrow,

I will kill myself and the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

If I am not alive tomorrow, I think that quagmire should kill the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

As LML just demonstrated, intelligence and the ability to communicate effectively do not effectively hedge against the town's tendency to self-destruct. At the very least LML should have stalled so we could get more information from this day before we lose another to a NK.

[Quagmire]

Assuming I am alive tomorrow,

I will kill myself and the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

If I am not alive tomorrow, I think that quagmire should kill the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

As LML just demonstrated, intelligence and the ability to communicate effectively do not effectively hedge against the town's tendency to self-destruct. At the very least LML should have stalled so we could get more information from this day before we lose another to a NK.

I don't support this now that it's been announced. I will be happy however to be the person to make the "boom goes the dynamite" if adel is dead tomorrow.

[ooba]

or...

DYNAMITE: OOBA

[/b]

You could have waited at least ..

Good luck Town.

[Claus]

Its a neutral move from the standpoint of a smart townie - if the entire town (scum have to agree to this too) decide to discuss about the possibilities of who to kill and then make them blow up each other - then me striking or not striking a light has no effect on the game.

No, it

does

affect the game. If you're pressured and scum, you can dynamite one of the most townish players instead of being dynamited by someone scummy. Similarly, if another scum's being pressured, that scum can dynamite you. For the town as a whole, there can only be negative consequences.

As the first person to strike a light, let me say that I was thinking the same thing as Ooba. I did that because I saw it as a neutral move (scum would never explode themselves), and decided to go with the "Is it dark in here?" joke.

LML's and Kuribo's reasons for not striking a light are reactionary and don't really make sense. It seems to me that they are trying to attack ooba more than arguing against "striking a light" itself. For kuribo, I can see it as his playstyle. It does look a little scummy coming from LML though.

Finally, CES is the first to actually give a good reason for not striking lights: It gives cornered scum a chance to choose which townie will die with them when they get voted down. That has convinced me that this is a "bad move", not the nonsense of "OMG it is bad for the town! It is agressive! You are scum!!".

Talking about scum, I'm slightly suspicious of:

- Nightson:
>> His opening post was "I'm up to killing whoever", still he didn't kill me on the spot, like he could have. Being an Yes-man to any kill proposals.

- LML:
>> Attack on Ooba for striking a light. Why ooba and not, say, me?
>> Suggestion that we should lynch the n1 and n2 votees. I'd say that taking the second ranked player from a vote list as the one to be killed is a bad idea:
- Sometimes it becomes the contest between two players, and people voting on player A are actually AGAINST player B dying. (sometimes even vote player A to avoid the death of player B).
- This allows for scum to weight on the death of two people while voting for only one.
>> Empty threat to dynamite ooba "this second", after calling for "town to talk" over and over again.

--- Oh, wait, he did it :-/ cheers for writing a reply WHILE you are reading the thread.

- Adel, Flameaxe:
>> Fully endorsing the "runner up gets blow" idea.

Incidentally, I think having two parallel "votes" (every player "vote1" and "vote2"), would be a better idea. We could tie people more closely with their lynch choices.


I would vote:

Vote1: Nightson

And

Vote2: LML

But it seems that day2 is over already :-/

[Adel]

ok, I think I've come up with a method that will win the game for us. It requires strict adherence to the following rules:

1: no one strikes a light until there are two wagon with >66% of living players between them. Everyone votes as per normal, and every 25 posts or so someone posts an "unofficial" votecount to keep track.
2: Once >66% of living players are voting for one of two players, one of those players strikes a light and kills the other. If both the #1 and the #2 player refuse to do this (should only happen if both are scum) a volunteer will kill one and then another volunteer will kill the other.
3: One player will act as the "enforcer" killing any player who strikes a light prematurely. Each enforcer names her own replacement. I've volunteered to be the first enforcer, and I name Quagmire to be my replacement once I am dead. I choose quagmire because I felt he was pro-town but would be a distraction to the town. I suggest future enforcers follow my example. If the designated enforcer fails to do her duty, she should quickly be wagoned and killed under rule 2.

Why this will work: late game success often depends upon analysis of voting patterns. In my experience, from games I've read and played in, it is common for a scum player to be considered the second most scummy player whenever a townie is lynched. By killing both, the scum (when they are not bussing) will have to avoid voting for each other far more often than normal. In the late game phase it should become rather obvious who they are. If they do not avoid voting for each other the random walk of wagon should net them in the meantime.

Why you should trust me: either I will be night killed tonight, or someone will test me by striking a light without consensus tomorrow. Either way my alignment will be reveal soon enough. Also, my analysis should stand up to the scrutiny of other players. Beware, scum players may attempt to derail my plan either by nitpicking it or trying to confuse the issue. Since I am explicitly laying my life on the line for this, I think I should get the benifit of the doubt.

Warning to scum: this is the only part of mafia I am actually good at: abstract game analysis. If I am correct in my analysis (and I am quite confident of this) you will be hard-pressed to counter it. Feel free to try though

[pickemgenius]

fwiw

VOTE 1: MARMALADE
VOTE 2: Surye

[Claus]

Adel, I didn't understand one part of your plan. Are you suggest that we normally vote only one player, and then get the #1 votee and the #2 votee to kill each other? Or that each player gets two votes?

Like I said in my last post, I feel that "1 player, 1 vote", and then kill the two top votees is flawed for two simultaneous lynches. If you disagree, I'd like to hear why.

Otherwise, I generally agree with what you propose.

[Elmo]

AGAIN?

[Adel]

two votes allows scum players to advance multiple wagons, and hide their relationship with each other by voting each other with less fear of that vote leading to a death of a scummate.

I strongly advocate 1 vote per person. 2 votes is more total information, but at the cost of allowing much more noise.

[Adel]

fwiw

VOTE 1: MARMALADE
VOTE 2: Surye

using this post as an

example

. if PEG were scum with Surye, he could push the Marmalade wagon and not hinder the wagon of a third player... allowing that third player and Marmalade to be the #1 and #2. Upon later analysis it would appear that there was no lack of voting connection between PEG and Surye.

Under the one vote play scum-PEG would have to choose between a vote on his scum buddy and a vote on a townie, making it more likely that his behavior in relation to his scum partner would stand out.

[Nightson]

vote: Surye

[Cogito Ergo Scum]

Adel's right. I suggest we follow her plan tomorrow.

Glad to see ooba dead, not glad to see LML dynamite him.

[Quagmire]

ok, I think I've come up with a method that will win the game for us. It requires strict adherence to the following rules:

1: no one strikes a light until there are two wagon with >66% of living players between them. Everyone votes as per normal, and every 25 posts or so someone posts an "unofficial" votecount to keep track.
2: Once >66% of living players are voting for one of two players, one of those players strikes a light and kills the other. If both the #1 and the #2 player refuse to do this (should only happen if both are scum) a volunteer will kill one and then another volunteer will kill the other.
3: One player will act as the "enforcer" killing any player who strikes a light prematurely. Each enforcer names her own replacement. I've volunteered to be the first enforcer, and I name Quagmire to be my replacement once I am dead. I choose quagmire because I felt he was pro-town but would be a distraction to the town. I suggest future enforcers follow my example. If the designated enforcer fails to do her duty, she should quickly be wagoned and killed under rule 2.

I don't think I've been a "distraction" to the town in the least. I'm volunteering for this as it's the best strategy to win the game.

[Adel]

I'm holding past games, like tree stump, against you.

[elvis_knits]

Not really sure why LML told everyone to wait to dynamite for everyone to check in and then dynamites ooba. I guess it's because he sounded like he was bluffing (as pointed out by Adel). I wouldn't expect a scum-LML to give up that easily though. Neither would I expect a town-LML. Not what I would expect from LML either way.

I agree with the plan to stop striking lights for tomorrow. We aren't getting enough discussion and dynamiting on consensus.

[Adel]

I think LML is tired of mafia, and I don't think he likes playing in games with me specifically.

[Yosarian2]

I have a question for Adel based on one of her posts today, but I suppose it should wait until we find out Ooba's alignment.

Anyway, I can see a ooba kill today, but the timing makes little sense. Tommorow, we really do have to be a little more patient.

I kind of like Adel's attempt to deter people from striking a light for no reason, but I would suggest she use a little bit of discression and not necessarally blow up ANYONE who strikes a light. Still, if she does force the town to use a little bit more reason, it should help our odds.

Anyway, no sense doing more scumhunting until we see what ooba's alignment was, so I guess I'll quibble a bit about stratagy stuff.

2: Once >66% of living players are voting for one of two players, one of those players strikes a light and kills the other. If both the #1 and the #2 player refuse to do this (should only happen if both are scum) a volunteer will kill one and then another volunteer will kill the other.

One problem with this method is that this could apply to more then two people. If 33% of the town is voting for person A, 33% of the town is voting for person B, and 33% of the town is voting for person C, then all three of them would fit the criteria she's given here. The same applies even if 50% are voting for person A, 30% are voting for person B and 20% are voting for person C, or whatever; basically, there could easily be more then 2 people who fit the criteria of "66% of the town is voting for one of two players".

The more fundimental problem is that we can force someone to blow someone up or be blown up himself, but we can't force him TO blow up any one person in specific; once he realizes he's going to die no matter what, we kind of lose all leverage there. I'm not sure what the solution for that is, though, other then just to hope that at least most townies are smart enough to realize the advantages to the town from them going along with the will of the town even if it means their death.

[Adel]

I kind of like Adel's attempt to deter people from striking a light for no reason, but I would suggest she use a little bit of discression and not necessarally blow up ANYONE who strikes a light. Still, if she does force the town to use a little bit more reason, it should help our odds.

there can not be an out. this needs to be an absolute. Scum can use the wiggle room, claiming confusion, or try to use rhetoric to give themselves room to maneuver.

There can be no way for an enforcer to back out of her responsibility to the town. Even if she is protown, confusion over her motivation and alignment will cause chaos for the town.

2: Once >66% of living players are voting for one of two players, one of those players strikes a light and kills the other. If both the #1 and the #2 player refuse to do this (should only happen if both are scum) a volunteer will kill one and then another volunteer will kill the other.

One problem with this method is that this could apply to more then two people. If 33% of the town is voting for person A, 33% of the town is voting for person B, and 33% of the town is voting for person C, then all three of them would fit the criteria she's given here. The same applies even if 50% are voting for person A, 30% are voting for person B and 20% are voting for person C, or whatever; basically, there could easily be more then 2 people who fit the criteria of "66% of the town is voting for one of two players".

33 + 33 == 66
66 is not greater than 66

if 50% vote for A, 30% vote for B and 20% vote for C then A and B die. isn't that really obvious?

The more fundimental problem is that we can force someone to blow someone up or be blown up himself, but we can't force him TO blow up any one person in specific; once he realizes he's going to die no matter what, we kind of lose all leverage there. I'm not sure what the solution for that is, though, other then just to hope that at least most townies are smart enough to realize the advantages to the town from them going along with the will of the town even if it means their death.

hesitation to go along with it is so anti-town that only scum or the King Of The Village Idiots would resist the town consensus.

I expect scum stuck in a position where the town is pressuring them to kill a scumbuddy to present a case that parallels Yos2's point here.

fos

yos2 for laying the rhetorical foundation for scum to attempt to resist the best interests of the town.

If two players have the 66+% of the votes needed for our consensus to be reached, and resist, then we conclude that they are both scum, and elect a third to blow up one and then the other.

[Adel]

if you want to quibble, push for 75% or 80% to be used rather than 66%.

[LoudmouthLee]

not tired of mafia at all. not tired of you either Adel. You do, however, have a wonderful opinion of yourself to think that I think of you at all

[Surye]

Hmm... I like Adel's plan, I only have one addition (though she may have implied it, I just wanted to clarify it explicitly), there's always the danger that votee #1 or #2 could in a panic, if scum, try and blow up a more pro-town player (as discussed), so when a concensus has been reached, #2 should Strike a Light, and then #1 should immediately dynamite #2, thus preventing any chance for a targeted attack.

Sorry if this was already obvious, but I thought it an important point.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="Adel"there can not be an out. this needs to be an absolute. Scum can use the wiggle room, claiming confusion, or try to use rhetoric to give themselves room to maneuver. [/quote]

Eh...I think the threat is strong enough and the gain is small enough that scum are unlikely to strike a light, even if you temper that threat with a little bit of wisdom.

Basically I just don't want to see you pointlessly blow yourself up against someone who makes a dumb move even if you're pretty sure they're a townie; I'd like you to leave YOURSELF some wiggle room, to allow you to use your own judgement on the matter, especally since the goal here is to try to avoid more hasty and pointless pro-town deaths.

That being said, I totally agree that no one should strike a light tommorow without town consencuss behind the move.

I expect scum stuck in a position where the town is pressuring them to kill a scumbuddy to present a case that parallels Yos2's point here.

fos

yos2 for laying the rhetorical foundation for scum to attempt to resist the best interests of the town.

That dosn't make any sense, Adel. You can't pressure scum to act in a pro-town way by threating that they'll look bad after they're dead, and it dosn't make any sense to suggest that I'm trying to "lay the rhetorical foundation" for some scum to "get away" with something, if that "something" would leave them dead anyway.

The point I was making is that if we think person A is scum, we can't necessarally expect them to kill person B on our command. It might be better if the town specifically nomiates who we want to do the kill and who we want to be the target, instead of just saying "top two people kill each other", since once someone strikes a light and waits 24 hours they could basically do whatever they wanted, and we don't want that. That just common sense, right?

Basically, my main point is that your system is flawed because it gives our top suspects way too much flexability. Once we have our best two suspects for tommorow, we probably want to be more specific then that, and actually direct them, like "Person A, strike a light, and then person B, we expect you to kill person A right away before the 24 hours is up." That way, if EITHER person A or person B is town, we can pretty much guarentee that they'll both die; if person A refuses to strike a light, then we can reverse it and have person B strike a light and kill him; and if person B refuses to detonate person A, then we can have person A just blow up person B once the 24 hours is up.