Chris Nolan Mafia - Game Over [ARCHIVE]

[nagerous]

I'm going to keep my vote on commander, for the reasons stated earlier. Apart from gunning on me he has still remained pretty quiet and hasn't really contributed much to discussions being made. This is unlike him.

I don't think No lynch is the way forward but there does seem to be a lot of hesitancy to push for a lynch, from myself included as none of the other arguments presented anywhere have convinced me too much.

[nagerous]

Also, FOS tails - for chopping and changing on the no lynch front - one minute he seems to be FOSing safari for it and the next he is voting it with the flimsy excuse that activity is dropping.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Also, FOS tails - for chopping and changing on the no lynch front - one minute he seems to be FOSing safari for it and the next he is voting it with the flimsy excuse that activity is dropping.

Yeah I had something written out earlier because I can understand what Saf was trying to say, but I ended up trashing it. There was talk about No Lynches in Mafioso and both Saf and Pancake had some thoughts about the matter that I agreed with. The fact that we have the kill and voting patterns means we've had a fairly productive D1 so far. My main reason for FOSing Saf was because he jumped all over shield for the matter, and yet had no hesitation on proposing the no lynch. I also was a little frustrated that no one had posted for like 24 hours when the other games are doing just fine.

Then help get the game moving and vote for him, it is the best lead we have D1.

Currently there are 4 people who can't even be bother enough to place a vote, and 6 votes spread to hell and back. Pick someone and get on with it people.

He ignores my argument, we all know full well that lynching rookies, the absent and the like are "easier" to lynch the a experienced player. He then goes on to rationalize his own vote on the wagon while redirecting the attention elsewhere, followed a defense of Nag, another player I have my eye on. Lynching Safari would also potentially give info on Nag's alignment.

10 people, I estimate probably 2 mafia + 1 Third Party SKer with Daykill abilities. So we build a case on someone now, that's only a 30% chance that we actually kill someone who is anti-town.

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

I would hope that in an 11 player game that the Daykiller has some sort of restrictions on his ability. With these justifications, which honestly sound like a bluff to me, I'll unvote vote Saf.

-Tails

[Commander9]

I'm going to keep my vote on commander, for the reasons stated earlier. Apart from gunning on me he has still remained pretty quiet and hasn't really contributed much to discussions being made. This is unlike him.

I don't think No lynch is the way forward but there does seem to be a lot of hesitancy to push for a lynch, from myself included as none of the other arguments presented anywhere have convinced me too much.

I still have posted quite a bit, but I agree that it's not as much as I usually post, but if you're referring to all these posts today - well, I'm not on 24/7. Furthermore, last time I was online, I posted my thoughts and they're not that different from what I've posted back then. I'm getting a feeling that this is a disguised OMGUS vote for calling you out before, but there's some truth in this.

Also, FOS tails - for chopping and changing on the no lynch front - one minute he seems to be FOSing safari for it and the next he is voting it with the flimsy excuse that activity is dropping.

Yeah I had something written out earlier because I can understand what Saf was trying to say, but I ended up trashing it. There was talk about No Lynches in Mafioso and both Saf and Pancake had some thoughts about the matter that I agreed with. The fact that we have the kill and voting patterns means we've had a fairly productive D1 so far. My main reason for FOSing Saf was because he jumped all over shield for the matter, and yet had no hesitation on proposing the no lynch. I also was a little frustrated that no one had posted for like 24 hours when the other games are doing just fine.

Well, Nag did the same and he was the original one, but I don't see you jumping all over him. I do agree that I found Saf somewhat scummy, but his no lynch suggestion also made sense to me. All in all, I'd hate to go the Albarezzi way, but we're not there yet and I can see a reason why to pressure Safari, but I will vote until I see the official vote count.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Well, Nag did the same and he was the original one, but I don't see you jumping all over him.

I've pointed out previously how I thought they have been playing similarly, and sheep has also stated as much.

I do agree that I found Saf somewhat scummy, but his no lynch suggestion also made sense to me. All in all, I'd hate to go the Albarezzi way, but we're not there yet and I can see a reason why to pressure Safari, but I will vote until I see the official vote count.

I seriously doubt that this game will end up in a mass claim like Albarezzi. And I think Albarezzi can be a lesson for everyone involved in that game about claiming. It's a last resort, so respond in a timely matter to cases against you and we can avoid stuff like that.

-Tails

[nagerous]

I find a little irony in what you 2 are discussing here, you both want to vote safari but for completely different reasons.

Tails - sees safari not scummy for initially pressuring shield on the no lynch front but the fact that he later voted no lynch is the scummy factor
Commander - sees safari scummy for initially pressurising shield (the same reason he finds me scummy) yet the fact he later votes no lynch himself to him seems like a non-scummy thing to do.

Make your mind up people. Personally, I will not be voting safari - the no lynch was certainly ballsy by him and quite the brave stab in the dark, I also agree with him as per what happened earlier in the game, so I'm going to take that punt and defend him here..

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I find a little irony in what you 2 are discussing here, you both want to vote safari but for completely different reasons.

lol I was actually thinking the same thing. Although Commie and I don't always see eye to eye, apparently. Damned Eastern Europeans.

-Tails

[Commander9]

I find a little irony in what you 2 are discussing here, you both want to vote safari but for completely different reasons.

Tails - sees safari not scummy for initially pressuring shield on the no lynch front but the fact that he later voted no lynch is the scummy factor
Commander - sees safari scummy for initially pressurising shield (the same reason he finds me scummy) yet the fact he later votes no lynch himself to him seems like a non-scummy thing to do.

Make your mind up people. Personally, I will not be voting safari - the no lynch was certainly ballsy by him and quite the brave stab in the dark, I also agree with him as per what happened earlier in the game, so I'm going to take that punt and defend him here..

To be fair, you've been together the whole game and one reason why I'd like to get one of you is because it would somewhat show the alignment of the other. Also, as far as Safari's NL goes - I think what he said makes sense and we have quite a bit of information for the next day, but I am also aware how you've played before and I'm not sure how to weight all of this at this moment. If I could choose a person to pressure, I'd go with you, but I don't mind Safari either.

lol I was actually thinking the same thing. Although Commie and I don't always see eye to eye, apparently. Damned Eastern Europeans.

*blushes* We do what we got to do...

[nagerous]

To be fair, you've been together the whole game and one reason why I'd like to get one of you is because it would somewhat show the alignment of the other.

the same could be said of you and edocsil.

I dislike the way you think of me and safari to think that if we were both scum we would staunchly make such a link between us so early in the game.

[nagerous]

and that isn't wifom that is general common mafia sense

[Commander9]

Well, normally I would be so quick to judge and decide, but you guys have agreed with pretty much everything so far. I think that normally good players wouldn't do that, but... everyone makes mistakes from time to time. (It's not necessarily a mistake, but at this moment it could be one and I wouldn't mind pursuing this lead)

[Commander9]

the same could be said of you and edocsil.

Hmm, now that I think about it... Yes, you are right with this statement. I could easily explain the reasons why I agree with Edoc so much, but the same argument would work for you and Safari. Bah.

[safariguy5]

Well, normally I would be so quick to judge and decide, but you guys have agreed with pretty much everything so far. I think that normally good players wouldn't do that, but... everyone makes mistakes from time to time. (It's not necessarily a mistake, but at this moment it could be one and I wouldn't mind pursuing this lead)

I never asked nag to jump in and defend my no lynch vote. I'm putting it out there all by myself. I really do think that at this point, we've accomplished what a reasonable day 1 should be, and that prolonging the day won't necessarily get us that much more information. Suppose we pressure someone and force them to claim. What happens when they claim something like cop or doc or vig (as some have suggested). Do we then pressure someone else? Or do we go to a no lynch? If we pressure everyone in turn, then it amounts to a drawn out massclaim. If we go to a no lynch, then we're basically where we are at now, except that now mafia know who one of the power roles is (as does the Joker). So I don't see how drawing out the day can be beneficial right now as whoever we choose to pressure could be important if they're town and probably has a fakeclaim if they're mafia.

Also, FOS tails - for chopping and changing on the no lynch front - one minute he seems to be FOSing safari for it and the next he is voting it with the flimsy excuse that activity is dropping.

Yeah I had something written out earlier because I can understand what Saf was trying to say, but I ended up trashing it. There was talk about No Lynches in Mafioso and both Saf and Pancake had some thoughts about the matter that I agreed with. The fact that we have the kill and voting patterns means we've had a fairly productive D1 so far. My main reason for FOSing Saf was because he jumped all over shield for the matter, and yet had no hesitation on proposing the no lynch. I also was a little frustrated that no one had posted for like 24 hours when the other games are doing just fine.

Then help get the game moving and vote for him, it is the best lead we have D1.

Currently there are 4 people who can't even be bother enough to place a vote, and 6 votes spread to hell and back. Pick someone and get on with it people.

He ignores my argument, we all know full well that lynching rookies, the absent and the like are "easier" to lynch the a experienced player. He then goes on to rationalize his own vote on the wagon while redirecting the attention elsewhere, followed a defense of Nag, another player I have my eye on. Lynching Safari would also potentially give info on Nag's alignment.

10 people, I estimate probably 2 mafia + 1 Third Party SKer with Daykill abilities. So we build a case on someone now, that's only a 30% chance that we actually kill someone who is anti-town.

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

I would hope that in an 11 player game that the Daykiller has some sort of restrictions on his ability. With these justifications, which honestly sound like a bluff to me, I'll unvote vote Saf.

-Tails

That's some selective memory there tails. I only proposed a no lynch after shield was killed. Where exactly did I say that I wanted a no lynch before he was killed. In fact, I was on his wagon and trying to get him to claim when the Joker killed him. Only after his death did I propose a no lynch. I think you're trying to drum up some excuse to pressure me, but can't find a good one so you then misinterpret when I suggested a no lynch to make it seem like you're not bandwagonning.

Fos Tails

[Fircoal]

Safari I'm not sure if you understand the reasons why people don't like no lynches. Does it matter that Shield was going to be our Day 1 lynch but just happened to be daykilled before we were able to lynch him? The answer is no. The many benefit of a lynch is that it gives us information that we can gain from other lynches. It is the town's main power. Mafia is a game of reading others and trying to find the tells that make them scum. The voting records are our solid pieces of evidence in which we can form cases around. It'd make sense that the more of these there are the better. However by deciding to go with a no lynch because our previous target was killed seems just silly to me. Do we all just give up and go to no lynch just because the guy that everyone bandwagonned and almost lynched ended up claiming cop and everyone backed down? No, so why would we here? I mean it's not even like Shield was the ultimate pro-town dude and we're in serious danger if we lose another, he was a 3RD PARTY. Useless. Unneeded. Unimportant. We haven't lost anyone important nor have we put any important people out in the open. So what do we have to lose yet? Nothing. What do we have to gain? Lots and lots of information. You can sugar coat it all you want and use the mass claim buzzword to try to get the town to do your will but it doesn't change why the town wants to lynch. The more we lynch, the more information we get and the more control we have. The lynch is the town's main power. We don't want to just throw that away. That'll get us nowhere (or in this case less of somewhere).

In conclusion: Unvote, Vote: Safari

Only scum would be trying to sugar coat the town into doing a no lynch.

[Fircoal]

What I would do for a few daykills of my own. Well, at least it is activity, albeit misguided. I really can't comprehend the wagon forming on me here. I am getting accused of wagoning WHEN I AM THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE VOTED FOR SAFARI. I guess that wasn't clear. I have beaten the whole shield thing to death, I think it is wrong to lynch a noob right off the bat for common noob mistakes, once it was plain he was trolling the game changed.

So I am sitting here putting on the breaks on some moronic NL (seriously guys, we have a mafia and a SK and you WANT to go to night?) advocating people to come and find someone worthwhile to vote off the island and you all get hostile over it?

God damn.

You're not the only person to jump on me, tails also did the same thing. That said, it's not a moronic NL, considering (as spiesr has pointed out) that we have basically accomplished what day 1 usually accomplishes. Let's look at the numbers here...

10 people, I estimate probably 2 mafia + 1 Third Party SKer with Daykill abilities. So we build a case on someone now, that's only a 30% chance that we actually kill someone who is anti-town.

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

In a c9 mafia a game with 2 mafia and 5 town for sure, a 28% chance of lynching scum, it'd be considered insane to vote no lynch. Why would you make the same justification here. Also since there are 11 players, I highly doubt that Pancake is insane enough to make a game that could potentially end on Day 2. Me? yes. Pancake? no. You have to remember games are made with balance in mind too (well at least most of them), we kill a 3rd party and still end up screwed? That doesn't sound balanced to me.

[safariguy5]

What I would do for a few daykills of my own. Well, at least it is activity, albeit misguided. I really can't comprehend the wagon forming on me here. I am getting accused of wagoning WHEN I AM THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE VOTED FOR SAFARI. I guess that wasn't clear. I have beaten the whole shield thing to death, I think it is wrong to lynch a noob right off the bat for common noob mistakes, once it was plain he was trolling the game changed.

So I am sitting here putting on the breaks on some moronic NL (seriously guys, we have a mafia and a SK and you WANT to go to night?) advocating people to come and find someone worthwhile to vote off the island and you all get hostile over it?

God damn.

You're not the only person to jump on me, tails also did the same thing. That said, it's not a moronic NL, considering (as spiesr has pointed out) that we have basically accomplished what day 1 usually accomplishes. Let's look at the numbers here...

10 people, I estimate probably 2 mafia + 1 Third Party SKer with Daykill abilities. So we build a case on someone now, that's only a 30% chance that we actually kill someone who is anti-town.

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

In a c9 mafia a game with 2 mafia and 5 town for sure, a 28% chance of lynching scum, it'd be considered insane to vote no lynch. Why would you make the same justification here. Also since there are 11 players, I highly doubt that Pancake is insane enough to make a game that could potentially end on Day 2. Me? yes. Pancake? no. You have to remember games are made with balance in mind too (well at least most of them), we kill a 3rd party and still end up screwed? That doesn't sound balanced to me.

Yes, but this isn't a C9 game. We already know there's a SKer of some sort, which means that if we pressure a claim and it's a town power role, then there's a distinct possibility the joker kills him tomorrow when no doc can protect him. If there were no daykill, then I would have fewer reservations about going no lynch. However, with a daykill in addition to the presumed mafia nightkill, I see no possibility of saving town power roles if they're forced the claim. We can use the veil of anonymity to our advantage against the SKer.

[spiesr]

Also, FOS tails - for chopping and changing on the no lynch front - one minute he seems to be FOSing safari for it and the next he is voting it with the flimsy excuse that activity is dropping.

I would hope that in an 11 player game that the Daykiller has some sort of restrictions on his ability. With these justifications, which honestly sound like a bluff to me, I'll unvote vote Saf.

Way to cave to pressure as soon as someone disagrees with your action there. Trying to avoid making anyone unhappy? FOS

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

This line of reasoning really isn't that good in my opinion. The odds of hitting a townie are always greater than hitting a mafia. That it just part of the game. But you see, we shouldn't be just picking someone at random anyway. We need to use the best reasoning and whatnot that we can to try and find the person most likely to be mafia. And if we mess up and find a townie instead? Then we use what we learned and try to to better tomorrow.

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

If we really are in a situation where we have a daytime serial killer, I would hope that there exists some role that can provide some level of protection against it. Maybe a doc could have his protection last through the following day or something?

There were 11 of us, so I guess there 2-3 scum and an SK. For the math I will assume only 2 scum. Batman is out there and he has a kill, I can think of no other conceivable role for him beyond Vig. 3 kills during the night leaves us at worst with 3 bad guys and 4 good guys. Bad odds. Perhaps we will get lucky, but I highly doubt it.

If you are operating under the assumption that the game has a mafia that can kill, a vig, and that the daykill was caused by an SK, then would that mean there would be at most two kills tonight? The third not happening until sometime tomorrow? Although I have no idea how many killing roles may actually be in this game. I currently suspect that there may be roles who need to kill a certain character to win. These may take the form of lynchers or have limited killing powers. Not sure how many of these a game this size could actually hold. Is it possibles that this game doesn't have a traditional mafia faction? But rather some sort of SK and few roles who have tasks that must be accomplished or they die before the game can end?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

That's some selective memory there tails. I only proposed a no lynch after shield was killed. Where exactly did I say that I wanted a no lynch before he was killed. In fact, I was on his wagon and trying to get him to claim when the Joker killed him. Only after his death did I propose a no lynch. I think you're trying to drum up some excuse to pressure me, but can't find a good one so you then misinterpret when I suggested a no lynch to make it seem like you're not bandwagonning.

Fos Tails

Oh I'm well aware of the chronology. My last post, I think, you might have misunderstood. I should've been clearer, I hastily put that one together. Allow me to elaborate.

You said:

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

Here you are justifying your no lynch not with the previous reason of "we have done enough" (which I can agree with as seen with my previous NL vote), but with threats of dire consequences to the town. If we "accidentally out a town power role," and s/he remains safe throughout the night, I seriously doubt said person would be threatened by the Joker daykiller. Here is why:

We've previously speculated that the DK perhaps needs a certain amount of votes to kill. Shield was at 5 votes when he was killed, right after your vote on him. Now perhaps this is speculation, but I find it odd that whomever the Joker is, why they didn't kill Shield at an earlier time. Obviously if we outed the doc or whatever they wouldn't accumulate the votes needed for the DK.

Also, we don't have any claims at the moment. It was my assertion that you're dangling this terrible possibility in front of us to scare us into no lynching.

Way to cave to pressure as soon as someone disagrees with your action there. Trying to avoid making anyone unhappy? FOS

Am I not allowed to change my mind when new posts develop?

-Tails

[VioIet]

Safari I'm not sure if you understand the reasons why people don't like no lynches. Does it matter that Shield was going to be our Day 1 lynch but just happened to be daykilled before we were able to lynch him? The answer is no. The many benefit of a lynch is that it gives us information that we can gain from other lynches. It is the town's main power. Mafia is a game of reading others and trying to find the tells that make them scum. The voting records are our solid pieces of evidence in which we can form cases around. It'd make sense that the more of these there are the better. However by deciding to go with a no lynch because our previous target was killed seems just silly to me. Do we all just give up and go to no lynch just because the guy that everyone bandwagonned and almost lynched ended up claiming cop and everyone backed down? No, so why would we here? I mean it's not even like Shield was the ultimate pro-town dude and we're in serious danger if we lose another, he was a 3RD PARTY. Useless. Unneeded. Unimportant. We haven't lost anyone important nor have we put any important people out in the open. So what do we have to lose yet? Nothing. What do we have to gain? Lots and lots of information. You can sugar coat it all you want and use the mass claim buzzword to try to get the town to do your will but it doesn't change why the town wants to lynch. The more we lynch, the more information we get and the more control we have. The lynch is the town's main power. We don't want to just throw that away. That'll get us nowhere (or in this case less of somewhere).

In conclusion: Unvote, Vote: Safari

Only scum would be trying to sugar coat the town into doing a no lynch.

QFT. This was a really keen post from Fircoal.

I feel that if we go the no lynch route, we will wake up in the morning with a townie dead- and be at the same exact place that we are now.

Only exception is if a cop makes some meaningful discovery during the night.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed that no one has commented on my case against sheep- except for sheep himself. And that doesn't count. It took me several hours and days to make that post (i know it doesn't look like it- but it did). And I'm not very good at making cases, but I did try with that one.

[spiesr]

Am I not allowed to change my mind when new posts develop?

Your allowed to do so, but, depending on the circumstances in which you do so, some might find it to be scummy...

[nagerous]

Safari I'm not sure if you understand the reasons why people don't like no lynches. Does it matter that Shield was going to be our Day 1 lynch but just happened to be daykilled before we were able to lynch him? The answer is no. The many benefit of a lynch is that it gives us information that we can gain from other lynches. It is the town's main power. Mafia is a game of reading others and trying to find the tells that make them scum. The voting records are our solid pieces of evidence in which we can form cases around. It'd make sense that the more of these there are the better. However by deciding to go with a no lynch because our previous target was killed seems just silly to me. Do we all just give up and go to no lynch just because the guy that everyone bandwagonned and almost lynched ended up claiming cop and everyone backed down? No, so why would we here? I mean it's not even like Shield was the ultimate pro-town dude and we're in serious danger if we lose another, he was a 3RD PARTY. Useless. Unneeded. Unimportant. We haven't lost anyone important nor have we put any important people out in the open. So what do we have to lose yet? Nothing. What do we have to gain? Lots and lots of information. You can sugar coat it all you want and use the mass claim buzzword to try to get the town to do your will but it doesn't change why the town wants to lynch. The more we lynch, the more information we get and the more control we have. The lynch is the town's main power. We don't want to just throw that away. That'll get us nowhere (or in this case less of somewhere).

In conclusion: Unvote, Vote: Safari

Only scum would be trying to sugar coat the town into doing a no lynch.

QFT. This was a really keen post from Fircoal.

I feel that if we go the no lynch route, we will wake up in the morning with a townie dead- and be at the same exact place that we are now.

Only exception is if a cop makes some meaningful discovery during the night.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed that no one has commented on my case against sheep- except for sheep himself. And that doesn't count. It took me several hours and days to make that post (i know it doesn't look like it- but it did). And I'm not very good at making cases, but I did try with that one.

I did read your post and thought you had made some good remarks and well thought out arguments. I am suspicious of sheep myself but I don't think there is enough to place a vote on him. He has been playing cautiously but the same could be said about the majority of the people in this game right now, like commander, spiesr and streaker. It seems people are what appears to be a post-Alberezzi comedown where we don't just jump from mindless bandwagon and claim to another mindless bandwagon until someone doesn't have a good enough claim and gets lynched. We've also had one day 1 lynch so I can sympathise with some of the people who do want to call it a day on this particular session. However, the way tailgunner in my view has approached it with his haphazardness to his thoughts has peaked his scumdar and seeing as I don't have enough backing on the commander lynch, I will unvote and vote tailgunner. I'll be watching how the bandwagon du jour develops on safariguy meanwhile.

[safariguy5]

That's some selective memory there tails. I only proposed a no lynch after shield was killed. Where exactly did I say that I wanted a no lynch before he was killed. In fact, I was on his wagon and trying to get him to claim when the Joker killed him. Only after his death did I propose a no lynch. I think you're trying to drum up some excuse to pressure me, but can't find a good one so you then misinterpret when I suggested a no lynch to make it seem like you're not bandwagonning.

Fos Tails

Oh I'm well aware of the chronology. My last post, I think, you might have misunderstood. I should've been clearer, I hastily put that one together. Allow me to elaborate.

You said:

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

Here you are justifying your no lynch not with the previous reason of "we have done enough" (which I can agree with as seen with my previous NL vote), but with threats of dire consequences to the town. If we "accidentally out a town power role," and s/he remains safe throughout the night, I seriously doubt said person would be threatened by the Joker daykiller. Here is why:

We've previously speculated that the DK perhaps needs a certain amount of votes to kill. Shield was at 5 votes when he was killed, right after your vote on him. Now perhaps this is speculation, but I find it odd that whomever the Joker is, why they didn't kill Shield at an earlier time. Obviously if we outed the doc or whatever they wouldn't accumulate the votes needed for the DK.

Also, we don't have any claims at the moment. It was my assertion that you're dangling this terrible possibility in front of us to scare us into no lynching.

Way to cave to pressure as soon as someone disagrees with your action there. Trying to avoid making anyone unhappy? FOS

Am I not allowed to change my mind when new posts develop?

-Tails

As said by Commander and a few others after shield was killed, the hint he dropped about seeing what might happen day 2 could be interpreted that he was a cop. Some people picked up on it, and some people like me and I think spiesr didn't. I think the Joker might have been one of those who interpreted it to mean that shield was a cop, and the joker might have feared being found out, hence the DK. And if we're going to speculate on the mechanic of the DK, how would this fit with his character? He basically killed who he wanted when he wanted, there was no need for public pressure on his victims...

[Fircoal]

Safari I'm not sure if you understand the reasons why people don't like no lynches. Does it matter that Shield was going to be our Day 1 lynch but just happened to be daykilled before we were able to lynch him? The answer is no. The many benefit of a lynch is that it gives us information that we can gain from other lynches. It is the town's main power. Mafia is a game of reading others and trying to find the tells that make them scum. The voting records are our solid pieces of evidence in which we can form cases around. It'd make sense that the more of these there are the better. However by deciding to go with a no lynch because our previous target was killed seems just silly to me. Do we all just give up and go to no lynch just because the guy that everyone bandwagonned and almost lynched ended up claiming cop and everyone backed down? No, so why would we here? I mean it's not even like Shield was the ultimate pro-town dude and we're in serious danger if we lose another, he was a 3RD PARTY. Useless. Unneeded. Unimportant. We haven't lost anyone important nor have we put any important people out in the open. So what do we have to lose yet? Nothing. What do we have to gain? Lots and lots of information. You can sugar coat it all you want and use the mass claim buzzword to try to get the town to do your will but it doesn't change why the town wants to lynch. The more we lynch, the more information we get and the more control we have. The lynch is the town's main power. We don't want to just throw that away. That'll get us nowhere (or in this case less of somewhere).

In conclusion: Unvote, Vote: Safari

Only scum would be trying to sugar coat the town into doing a no lynch.

QFT. This was a really keen post from Fircoal.

I feel that if we go the no lynch route, we will wake up in the morning with a townie dead- and be at the same exact place that we are now.

Only exception is if a cop makes some meaningful discovery during the night.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed that no one has commented on my case against sheep- except for sheep himself. And that doesn't count. It took me several hours and days to make that post (i know it doesn't look like it- but it did). And I'm not very good at making cases, but I did try with that one.

Actually I liked your post of Sheep though I was surprised why you only FOSed him and didn't do more on it. The reason I didn't reply was cause I didn't have much to add except for the fact that I agreed.

What I would do for a few daykills of my own. Well, at least it is activity, albeit misguided. I really can't comprehend the wagon forming on me here. I am getting accused of wagoning WHEN I AM THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE VOTED FOR SAFARI. I guess that wasn't clear. I have beaten the whole shield thing to death, I think it is wrong to lynch a noob right off the bat for common noob mistakes, once it was plain he was trolling the game changed.

So I am sitting here putting on the breaks on some moronic NL (seriously guys, we have a mafia and a SK and you WANT to go to night?) advocating people to come and find someone worthwhile to vote off the island and you all get hostile over it?

God damn.

You're not the only person to jump on me, tails also did the same thing. That said, it's not a moronic NL, considering (as spiesr has pointed out) that we have basically accomplished what day 1 usually accomplishes. Let's look at the numbers here...

10 people, I estimate probably 2 mafia + 1 Third Party SKer with Daykill abilities. So we build a case on someone now, that's only a 30% chance that we actually kill someone who is anti-town.

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

In a c9 mafia a game with 2 mafia and 5 town for sure, a 28% chance of lynching scum, it'd be considered insane to vote no lynch. Why would you make the same justification here. Also since there are 11 players, I highly doubt that Pancake is insane enough to make a game that could potentially end on Day 2. Me? yes. Pancake? no. You have to remember games are made with balance in mind too (well at least most of them), we kill a 3rd party and still end up screwed? That doesn't sound balanced to me.

Yes, but this isn't a C9 game. We already know there's a SKer of some sort, which means that if we pressure a claim and it's a town power role, then there's a distinct possibility the joker kills him tomorrow when no doc can protect him. If there were no daykill, then I would have fewer reservations about going no lynch. However, with a daykill in addition to the presumed mafia nightkill, I see no possibility of saving town power roles if they're forced the claim. We can use the veil of anonymity to our advantage against the SKer.

I don't think the veil of anonymity is worth giving up the Town's biggest power. And c9 or not the game is still the same. And how are you so sure that it's 2 mafia and an SK? You seem to bring up those numbers as if it's a fact. The fact that there's a 3rd-party cop makes me suspicious that they may be much more to this setup that beats the eye.

[safariguy5]

Safari I'm not sure if you understand the reasons why people don't like no lynches. Does it matter that Shield was going to be our Day 1 lynch but just happened to be daykilled before we were able to lynch him? The answer is no. The many benefit of a lynch is that it gives us information that we can gain from other lynches. It is the town's main power. Mafia is a game of reading others and trying to find the tells that make them scum. The voting records are our solid pieces of evidence in which we can form cases around. It'd make sense that the more of these there are the better. However by deciding to go with a no lynch because our previous target was killed seems just silly to me. Do we all just give up and go to no lynch just because the guy that everyone bandwagonned and almost lynched ended up claiming cop and everyone backed down? No, so why would we here? I mean it's not even like Shield was the ultimate pro-town dude and we're in serious danger if we lose another, he was a 3RD PARTY. Useless. Unneeded. Unimportant. We haven't lost anyone important nor have we put any important people out in the open. So what do we have to lose yet? Nothing. What do we have to gain? Lots and lots of information. You can sugar coat it all you want and use the mass claim buzzword to try to get the town to do your will but it doesn't change why the town wants to lynch. The more we lynch, the more information we get and the more control we have. The lynch is the town's main power. We don't want to just throw that away. That'll get us nowhere (or in this case less of somewhere).

In conclusion: Unvote, Vote: Safari

Only scum would be trying to sugar coat the town into doing a no lynch.

QFT. This was a really keen post from Fircoal.

I feel that if we go the no lynch route, we will wake up in the morning with a townie dead- and be at the same exact place that we are now.

Only exception is if a cop makes some meaningful discovery during the night.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed that no one has commented on my case against sheep- except for sheep himself. And that doesn't count. It took me several hours and days to make that post (i know it doesn't look like it- but it did). And I'm not very good at making cases, but I did try with that one.

Actually I liked your post of Sheep though I was surprised why you only FOSed him and didn't do more on it. The reason I didn't reply was cause I didn't have much to add except for the fact that I agreed.

What I would do for a few daykills of my own. Well, at least it is activity, albeit misguided. I really can't comprehend the wagon forming on me here. I am getting accused of wagoning WHEN I AM THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE VOTED FOR SAFARI. I guess that wasn't clear. I have beaten the whole shield thing to death, I think it is wrong to lynch a noob right off the bat for common noob mistakes, once it was plain he was trolling the game changed.

So I am sitting here putting on the breaks on some moronic NL (seriously guys, we have a mafia and a SK and you WANT to go to night?) advocating people to come and find someone worthwhile to vote off the island and you all get hostile over it?

God damn.

You're not the only person to jump on me, tails also did the same thing. That said, it's not a moronic NL, considering (as spiesr has pointed out) that we have basically accomplished what day 1 usually accomplishes. Let's look at the numbers here...

10 people, I estimate probably 2 mafia + 1 Third Party SKer with Daykill abilities. So we build a case on someone now, that's only a 30% chance that we actually kill someone who is anti-town.

Add to that, the Joker character has daykill abilities. If we accidentally out a town power role, even if the mafia don't get him tonight, the Joker is probably going to off him tomorrow. So if we keep forcing claims out of people and turn this into Albarezzi v 2.0, mafia and the Joker are going to shooting fish in a barrel, except with kills in both night and day.

At this point, I'm getting more committed to the idea that we can't afford accidentally outing another town role as the upside of catching scum (not very likely) vs. the downside of getting a town member killed sometime soon (more likely) is not very favorable.

In a c9 mafia a game with 2 mafia and 5 town for sure, a 28% chance of lynching scum, it'd be considered insane to vote no lynch. Why would you make the same justification here. Also since there are 11 players, I highly doubt that Pancake is insane enough to make a game that could potentially end on Day 2. Me? yes. Pancake? no. You have to remember games are made with balance in mind too (well at least most of them), we kill a 3rd party and still end up screwed? That doesn't sound balanced to me.

Yes, but this isn't a C9 game. We already know there's a SKer of some sort, which means that if we pressure a claim and it's a town power role, then there's a distinct possibility the joker kills him tomorrow when no doc can protect him. If there were no daykill, then I would have fewer reservations about going no lynch. However, with a daykill in addition to the presumed mafia nightkill, I see no possibility of saving town power roles if they're forced the claim. We can use the veil of anonymity to our advantage against the SKer.

I don't think the veil of anonymity is worth giving up the Town's biggest power. And c9 or not the game is still the same. And how are you so sure that it's 2 mafia and an SK? You seem to bring up those numbers as if it's a fact. The fact that there's a 3rd-party cop makes me suspicious that they may be much more to this setup that beats the eye.

I'm not sure that it's 2 mafia and an SKer, but 3 anti-town roles is probably the upper limit to me. Could definitely be less, but 12 person game, 3 anti-town roles with 1 third party role and 8 town balances pretty well to me. Any more mafia or SKers and they would have the advantage I think.

[VioIet]

The reason I didn't vote sheep, is because things were centered around edoc and nag at the time, to my recollection. I didn't want to cast a divisive vote without more feedback from everyone else.

The cases on them were dwindling down and activity was slowing, so i thought it was a good time to bring forth a new case. But lately when I've been doing all my scum hunting, i've been keeping an eye out on people who have been casting what i call "divisive votes."

That is basically when there is heat and a bandwagon growing on one or two players, and someone just comes out of the blue, and casts a random vote for someone else, without even commenting on the arguments at hand. Lately I have been calling people out for such behavior, like in the POTC game. I didn't want to be a hypocrite and do the very exact same thing this game with sheep. So I thought an FOS would suffice for the moment, and just bring some attention to him.