Uhm...


If it's a lone scum it's either Joe or Lift. Between the two I'm more inclined to go with the Sugar Buns. Lift's convoluted claim sounds way too risky to make if he is actively trying to win the game (of course there is the element of WIFOM but still). Lift ain't stupid and isn't in a terrible to position to have to resort to something like that. I think.


If it's a team it has to one of:

- Joe + Pooka - I think I like this one the most. See my Vanilla scum theory on why (ignore the part where only scum are Vanilla, everything else still mostly works)

- Joe + Lift - Maybe, were there decent clues to make it unlikely?

- RW + Pooka - Would mean that Pooka tried to distance/bus RW earlier today. Not the most likely one but it's a possibility

- RW + Joe - This have been marked a couple of times as very unlikely combination (mostly by Joe, by the way, but also Lift). To be honest I'm not too sure if there is a really good evidence backing that up but maybe it's true so I'm leaving it at the bottom for now.

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

- RW + Lift - Why would the two scum who get to claim first and last and know that there are three (cough!) Town Vanillas between them would go over this charade with Lift's claim? Lift had the perfect chance to tailor his claim however he wanted and RW could have backed him up in a number of ways to get me and one of you and Joe to hang the other. I'm not seeing it.

- Pooka + Lift - Doesn't work in my eyes.

From a pure combination view that's true. But he feels more towny since yesterday. I got the impression, that he actually was trying to find out the truth, complete with doubting himself and his willingness to let go of his favourite target (me). I think scum-Joe would have kept trying to get me lynched. ... Of course, he might be play-acting those self-doubts. It's just an impression, but unfortunately impressions are all we really have aside from some mechanical exclusions. The difference I perceive between Joe and you is the apparent goal. Joe seems to be trying to untangle this. While you seem to be content just to suspect anyone whatsoever, without really thinking things through - and that would fit a scum, who hides behind Town-desperation. Of course it is possible that it is just a difference in play-style. It has happened before that I found you scummy even when you were Town. But the problem is, we can't be sure. Scum can be any one or two out of you three and in the end, we must lynch someone. If we actually do have two scum and we don't lynch, we lose.

So, in the two-scum scenario I think that Pooka is the best lynch.

In the one-scum scenario, however, it would be Joe after all. Pooka can't be lone scum and RW is unlikely to be lone scum. Unless he is of the kind that can both use his PR and kill in the same night. A scenario, that Joe pointed out ...

nooo jst lost a medium-sized post!!! :(


The gist was my instict is vote RW because dedo and lift prefer to lynch pooka and if either of them is mafia then I shouldn't listen, but the counter argument is that dedo's pretty certainly not scum and I don't see why scum-Lift should be defending me right now.

Then I coined the term ROMBUS (reverse-oh-my-bod-u-suk) and asked everybody if lift has anything to gain from buddying up to Joe at this stage? Even he has something to gain, do you think he'd do it?

@everbody - ^ this


oh yeah I started by saying @Trentonlf - do you consider the rule "a role with two abilities can only act once per night" a hard-and-fast rule for mafia. Would you ever break it?

Rules are made to be followed or to be broken depending on the situation :)

You all sure don't make this easy.
Lift with a bizarre claim.
Lots of finger pointing and often incomplete analyses.

Lift's role claim is "something"...
I'm not sure I'm entirely buying it, but weird thought, is it possible it works and he doesn't know it? Might he have really blocked RFG and that's why there was no kill? If that claim came from Yogsloth, I'd be all over him. I don't recall Lift using any weird false claims like this in the past though. And why would he claim Roleblocker of all things with Jailer on the table? Or did he panic from my claim and the tale gets longer in the telling?

Both Pooka and Joe are full of "anyone but me" accusations trying to push anyone else. I'm stumped...

Well, of course I would buddy up to you if I were scum and you were town and I had something to gain from it.

But this is a very strange question in a closed setup. Did you really expect trent to answer it?

You're right. It's less obvious than in the case of Pooka. But the selection of opportune observations is there.

I don't think so. N1 I was told explicitly that I couldn't leave my room - and RFG's Ascetic role modifier explicitly states that he can't be targeted by anything but kills. So if he would have been blocked by me in spite of it not being possible and in spite of me getting a 'fail' message, that would definitely be bastard modding. I don't think trent would do that.

However, the flavour N2 and N3 was different. I wasn't told that I couldn't leave my room. I was told that I lost interest in my target. I took that as referring to their Vanilla status and as statement, that my block failed. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's a sign that they didn't try to do anything. Maybe my role isn't negative utility after all, but my 'limitation' is actually additional information once I figure it out. Maybe the 'limitation' is: can only target players who actually try to do something at Night.

In that case it would mean, that Joe did't try anything in N2 and Pooka didn't try anything in N3. So if they are a scum-team, it would mean that Pooka performed the kill in N2 and Joe performed the kill in N3. So it would mean that my role isn't useless or worse, but only that I targeted the wrong target each Night.

But of course this is again speculation about an unknown role modifier. Nothing solid.

Something I just noticed. My role description states that I can ROLEBLOCK and simultaneously protect a player one per night (twice in total). I think that's a mistake in wording as in the case of the Jailkeeper having a role/action or not is inconsequential. I effectively remove the player from the game for the night barring oddities like the Ascetic and other such things that might prevent me of doing so. I always thought this just blocking but looking at mafiascum's descriptions or "Roleblocker" they seem to mean the same thing. So if the terms "block" and "roleblock" are used interchangeably Joe not having an actual role should be an issue. If Lift's claim is true then the limitation is the problem and not the absence of an active ability on Joe's side.

Full EBWOP for #758

Something I just noticed. My role description states that I can ROLEBLOCK and simultaneously protect a player once per night (twice in total). I thought that's a mistake in wording as in the case of the Jailkeeper having a role/action or not is inconsequential. I effectively remove the player from the game for the night barring oddities like the Ascetic and other such things that might prevent me of doing so. I always thought this was just blocking but looking at mafiascum's descriptions or "Roleblocker" they seem to mean the same thing. So if the terms "block" and "roleblock" are used interchangeably Joe not having an actual role shouldn't be an issue. If Lift's claim is true then the limitation is the problem and not the absence of an active ability on Joe's side.

Prefer to lynch Pooka over RW. I didn't mean you prefer to lynch Pooka over me.


Because I can't see what lift would have to gain from buddying up to me (I'm not popular or influential - I can't do much to protect him if he does come under scrutiny - it looks much more likely that I'm the one who's about to come under scrutiny than I am - he's got enough reason to outright suspect me without getting a tough time).

So I wanted to know if you (and also Lift) could think of something that I wasn't thinking of?

Do you actually get something out of not answering such things? ;p



uhhh... not "anyone but me". Just "you and pooka," actually.


You might have something to gain from it, but more to lose from it. In that situation you'd be unlikely to buddy up to me. No?
Can you think of something scum-Lift would have to gain from buddying up to town-Joe?

I could imagine him saying "Roles can't take two actions in one night, that's the rules of mafia." I don't think that would be unfair.
Nor could I imagine any harm that the question could do. Can you?


He's wrong ;p (see above)


@Trent Thanks for answering my question

@everyone else Thanks for nothing, bitches.

Spare time to bathe in the ocean that are your eyes :*

If you don't mind me barging in on your discussion I also don't see the use of asking the mod things that are almost certainly going to remain unanswered or the answer would be inconclusive/ambiguous. These tend to get asked most often by [newer] scum players who are trying to look busy and/or are hoping to get credit for asking, knowing what the result will be. Of course, you aren't new but there is also the wine if from of me, so yeah :)

IF Trent had answered "No I'd never let a scum kill and cop on the same night," we'd have relevant information - it's not inconceivable that Trent would think it fair we should have that information. If I was mod I wouldn't mind being asked.


Did you think about if scum-Lift has a reason for buddying town-Joe yet?

It's not about minding being asked. It's about whether or not you'll answer. That's my point - asking questions that will almost certainly not get a proper/concrete answer is most often done for the sake of appearances. "Look at me, I'm doing stuff and am trying to figure things out yada yada". Here:


@Trent, would you host a game where the initial ratio Town:Scum is 70:30 percent and Town has a couple of limited powers and since there are so many mafia players would they have powers too or would they be simple goons for the sake of game balance? If yes, is this that game?


Is he, though? But let's assume for a moment he is. WIFOM + appearances. Scumbuddies (Lift helps you while you are questioning his actions resulting in distancing). All the normal and, I'd say, obvious reasons.

Hm. Not really. At least not in our current situation. Apart from WIFOM, of course. That would always be an option.

(Pre-post edit: yea, what dedo said, basically)

Not harm. But benefit. Town would benefit from the answering of that question. We still are unclear on the point whether RW can be single scum or not. With the clarification, trent would have removed that doubt. Scum profit from doubt. So by removing it, trent would influence the running game for the benefit of one side. Which is a big no-no for running Mafia games. ... Unless it was a genuine omission in the rules, which has to be clarified. But I think trent would have clarified any errors on his part on his own by now, if he wanted to.

You being an experienced Mafia player are surely aware of the balancing factor that uncertainty plays. So your question can be one of two things:
-either you are Town and you tried to give Town a small advantage by asking a 'harmless' question.
-or you are scum who made a show of asking a pro-Town question, knowing that trent probably wouldn't answer.

Get a room, you two! ;-)

And now, for a change, a serious question to the mod:
@trent: how much time do we have left until deadline?

Well I did it for the chance that he would give a proper/concrete answer.

Thanks. I'm discounting the third, and I reckon the first two are unlikely, considering mine and Lift's current standing in the game.