Mafia 2016

I think Manlove's concern is that with no-lynch, we may likely end up at 3v2, which is very easily swayed in scum's favor because 1 townie naively trusting a scum is enough for scum to get a majority. I personally can't tell how likely this is to happen, but if it is likely Manlove might have a point in being against no-lynch. And now someone's gonna say I'm super scum for supporting manlove. I don't mind though, I like being called a bad girl ;)

If we lynch and hit a scum... well that's good and we actually have a 2/6 = 1/3 chance of doing that. If we hit a townie (2/3 chance), we lose if there's no protection roles, and if there are we end up at 3v2. Whether or not there are protection roles is clearly fairly relevant here, but even with that knowledge I couldn't make a clear decision eitherways, so I shall withhold my vote for now.

But we'd be sacrificing town as a majority to narrow down the suspect list. That sounds good in from hypothetical and mathematical viewpoint, but in reality we'd be shooting ourselves in the feet. if we dont lynch today, then tomorrow we have two scum alive and a minimum of 3 votes to lynch, which both scum could wait until anyone else puts down a single vote and then both pounce for their instant lynch and subsequent win.

At least with lynching today, the day after would have 4 players with one scum, meaning it would take 2 town votes to get a lynch.

You are leading us into a trap, 1337ness.

Captain Manlove wrote:

both scum could wait until anyone else puts down a single vote and then both pounce for their instant lynch and subsequent win.

That's... actually a fairly good point. I guess we could just avoid voting too quickly, but even then we're still in a fairly bad spot at 3v2, meaning we can count 3v2 as an almost certain loss.

With that in mind, lynching now gives us a 1/3 chance of most likely winning, and a 2/3 of either losing or ending up at 3v2 if we still have prot roles. So, assuming prot roles, lynching now is effectively the same as no-lynching without prot roles but with an additional 1/3 chance of winning.

No-lynching either gives us a 3v2, which we most likely lose, or puts us back where we are now... which doesn't benefit us at all.

Seems like lynching now is better after all.

Captain Manlove wrote:

You are leading us into a trap, 1337ness.

You may or may not have a point here. I genuinely can't tell whether he simply wasn't aware why no-lynching might backfire, or was aware and was actively trying to lead us into a trap. I do feel that his immediate re-voting of me and then unvoting as soon as I challenged him on it is a bit strange, so is the massclaim comment (the one I pointed out earlier).

Captain Manlove wrote:

But we'd be sacrificing town as a majority to narrow down the suspect list. That sounds good in from hypothetical and mathematical viewpoint, but in reality we'd be shooting ourselves in the feet.

Unsubstantiated claim.

Captain Manlove wrote:

if we dont lynch today, then tomorrow we have two scum alive and a minimum of 3 votes to lynch, which both scum could wait until anyone else puts down a single vote and then both pounce for their instant lynch and subsequent win.

Well it's a good thing that town isn't filled with morons who throw votes around when scum can quickhammer, isn't it? "If town do a dumb thing then we lose" is a bad argument because it implies that town will definitely do that dumb thing. Town will almost certainly not do that dumb thing now that you have pointed out that it is a dumb thing to do (so sure, thanks for the PSA).

Captain Manlove wrote:

At least with lynching today, the day after would have 4 players with one scum, meaning it would take 2 town votes to get a lynch.

You actually haven't read the rules, have you?

Captain Manlove wrote:

You are leading us into a trap, 1337ness.

You've fucking got me, man. I'm leading you into a trap to maximise your chances of lynching scum.

Uh, I'm not sure if anyone (Cracked?) can vouch for me on this, but I don't lie about mafia theory in mafia games. Generally not useful.

I get it, voting under the threat of quickhammer is scary, but it's psychological. You just need to not vote until you're really sure, which is not really any different from not being on a wagon in 6-way until you're sure (also pulling off quickhammer is actually moderately hard even if the scumteam is within the same time zone, they both need to be actively paying attention to the game thread at roughly the same time before the voter gets cold feet and pussies out).

But fucking fine, we can lynch you today if you really want, I've gotta admit, I don't really know what new information over the night is going to change my mind about it.

Not even going to quote Iced_Tea's most recent post.

Captain Manlove wrote:

Uh, I'm not sure if anyone (Cracked?) can vouch for me on this, but I don't lie about mafia theory in mafia games. Generally not useful.

I get it, voting under the threat of quickhammer is scary, but it's psychological. You just need to not vote until you're really sure, which is not really any different from not being on a wagon in 6-way until you're sure (also pulling off quickhammer is actually moderately hard even if the scumteam is within the same time zone, they both need to be actively paying attention to the game thread at roughly the same time before the voter gets cold feet and pussies out).

You know what? Fair cop, I'll concede.

For the most part, I've been pushing this view because of that very worry, that you were lying about the theory in order to manipulate the game in scum's favour, but I suppose I could very well be mistaking scumminess with experienced play. Or maybe not and this is some elaborate mind game, only time will tell.

VOTE: No-Lynch


Also:

1337ness_of_teh_n00b wrote:

Captain Manlove wrote:

At least with lynching today, the day after would have 4 players with one scum, meaning it would take 2 town votes to get a lynch.

You actually haven't read the rules, have you?

My bad on this one, what I meant to say was it would take at least 2 town, as you'd need 3 for a vote and there's 1 scum.

Captain Manlove wrote:

You know what? Fair cop, I'll concede.

For the most part, I've been pushing this view because of that very worry, that you were lying about the theory in order to manipulate the game in scum's favour, but I suppose I could very well be mistaking scumminess with experienced play. Or maybe not and this is some elaborate mind game, only time will tell.

This. My suspicions regarding 1337ness have been sufficiently soothed by his last post (at least for now).

Vote: No-Lynch

Sorry for the intense lack of posting. The information here has been quite a read-through. Unfortunately I will be completely unable to post for the next three days.
Based on what I've seen here Vote: No-Lynch as it seems like the best course of action.
If the mod decides to replace me then feel free to do so. I haven't really filled my obligation to posting on day 2.

Vote Count 2.2

No Lynch (3): 1337ness_of_teh_n00b, Captain Manlove, Iced_Tea

Not Voting: Cracked Atlas, Melexiious, Tunnel Snakes Rule

With 6 alive it takes 4 to lynch!

With three votes on No Lynch, that's enough. Tunnel Snakes Rule's vote is not counted as the no lynch had already gone through.

Due to Tunnel Snakes Rule's absence, night will be extended until he returns so we can start the day with everyone.

Night will end in 72 hours, not 48.

Countdown

VOTE: No Lynch

If I die tonight, I'm gonna be an angry Susan.

Bit of a delayed reaction there, Cracked.

Though then again I was late here too.


Nobody died last night.

Vote Count 3.0

Not Voting: 1337ness_of_teh_n00b, Cracked Atlas, Melexiious, Captain Manlove, Iced_tea, Tunnel Snakes Rule

With 6 alive it takes 4 to lynch!

Deadline in one week from this post. I am in a rush now and will post the deadline countdown with next Vote Count.

So did a protective role get a correct shot again?
Guess so.

Well, this clearly is going to be a standard for this game.
Literally the only death so far has been due to lack of posting.

Mod fucking sucks at punctuality, and scum fucking suck at murder.

And I fucking suck 1337ness's dick every day.

Nothing further.

Iced_Tea wrote:

Nothing further.

Thanks for the update.

Now, onto Cracked for the Weather.

I'm gonna have to outsource this one to 1337ness for confirmation, but I'm pretty sure a massclaim here is, more or less, a town win.

Day 3 Deadline

Hmmm, not totally sure of that, is there a specific line of reasoning or is it just a hunch? I'm inclined to trust a hunch of yours at this point in time.

Eh, a little more than a hunch, but it does rely on a few, uh, assumptions about the set (and a few other things.) More than that I don't wanna say, because I don't wanna give scum pointers on how to lie.

I'm in agreement for a mass claim, everyone else?

I'm still cool with mass claim. What method do we use? (Popcorn, daisy chain, etc...)

I'm thinking Popcorn is a good idea, i've never seen it in a game before so I'd like to see how it goes.

Melexiious wrote:

I'm thinking Popcorn is a good idea, i've never seen it in a game before so I'd like to see how it goes.

Who to start with then?

Either Iced, 1337ness or Manlove is my vote.

Lolwut?

Given that there's something close to lynch support on Iced_Tea, it seems pretty clear that he's claim #1.

Well, you've been pretty aggressive all game.
But you know, that's just you. I would certainly be interested in what you say.

I say Iced, Manlove, 1337ness, Cracked/Myself then finally TSR

(I just realized that popcorn and my daisy chain suggestion are basically the same. I can't read.)

Anyway uhh so who goes first (assuming TSR and Manlove agree with massclaiming aswell). I can volunteer if needed, though I don't think that will be necessary as I'll get voted to go first anyway.