FWIW, I have no idea what availability if any I'll have Sat, esp since Lift's Saturday starts well before mine. But I have an appointment in the a.m. and then am scheduled to travel if healthy enough to.

cristi has re-affirmed her vote, though hedged it as a "for now." (121) I may have missed it, but I'm curious about those other two early votes:
@HSL - is this still where you want to be? If so, why?
@P1na - same? If so, why?

I wasn't inclined to anyway, but yeah, not getting on that P1na wagon.

Discussing role strategies is a tricky subject. First and foremost, town wants to guard against giving away information about who does/does not have a role. It's easy to include too much information and give scum a hint as to a player's role. Well meaning suggestions can have unintended consequences. Second, speaking publicly about future night actions allows scum to plan and potentially manipulate the actions.

If either of these may occur, generally, the discussion should be avoided.

Yes, upon checking back, that's true. But I missed it because the vote wasn't bolded, which is the key word I'm looking for.

So, a reminder: bold your entire vote, preferrably in a separate line. If you hide it in the flow text and it's only half bolded I might miss it.

OK, well I was all set to change my vote from Bler, which no one is getting on, to Joe who was my next in line. No one agrees with my Bler tunnel, so maybe I over analysed, I'm not sure

And then I read this, which I liked and is maybe a good town strategy (although 2 misslynches would be very bad), if not for this round then maybe for the next all the same:

I do think your hiding something Joe, but I tend to now think it's Neutral Survivor rather than Scum.

Thoughts everyone?

I'm not in a strange position where I'm unsure who to vote for after having read 2 players as Scummy.

My reads on the rest. ZFR seems reasonably townee but posts far less than he usually does, which may or may not be suspicious. Actually ZFR got lynched D1 as Town for being too aggressive/active so maybe he's modified his game

SPF and HSL are far too lurky but maybe just busy. P1NA posting allot without critiquing anyone. Muddy the same, not wanting to hurt anyones feelings.

Christi hasn't given much analysis. Christi initially picked Agent for his vote of a none game player seeming suspicious. It could mean nothing. Agent, rightly or wrongly voted on my established wagon. Although he isn't the only player to read me as possible Scum so that alone doesn't make him. I could maybe vote Agent but he hasn't got a wagon that will take off right now anyway.

So essentially I should be choosing between Joe, P1na and SPF because they have wagons. All seem like a stab in the dark except Joe who I maybe giving too much credit for his double lynch strategy.

What time's the deadline today?

My time got cut short, I will check back in later today.

No. Tomorrow. Today is Friday, if my calendar doesn't lie to me.

(The exact time is randomly determined. Roughly 2 days after the Decision Bell, give or take several hours.)

Does this change any of your reasoning?

Bad idea on Day 1. We have very little information and the best (worst?) statistical odds of hitting town. It's a possibility later in the game, but I think it's a horrible idea for Day 1.

I may be in the minority, but this isn't a scum-tell for me. I'd do this if I had any precedent for it.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. /s

Sorry, but it's damnably hard to tell the difference from this side of the internet. I'll back off on that claim.

Hmmm...

I mean, are you ever going to admit that an argument to lynch you is a fair one?

Care to explain this?


Catching up. Will be back with more.

This is why I don't like meta-reads.

Hrm.

Unvote supplementscene

This.

Heh.

I played Mafia IRL looong before I played it online. No-lynch wasn't even an option. Perhaps that's why I never saw it as a good option.

I like the way his vote lines up with his mouth. It's truly stylish.


Will reread JoeSapphire, SirPrimalForm, and ZFR.

Why?

By this reasoning one lynch is "bad idea on Day 1" because "We have very little information and the best (worst?) statistical odds of hitting town."

A lynch is Town's weapon. Why not use it twice if given the opportunity? We get info from 2 wagons instead of one.

JoeSapphire: 3 -> 2

I'm willing to give his first post the benefit of the doubt. He hadn't made his RVS vote yet, though it was a hundred posts into the game. I can also forgive accidentally forgetting to bold a vote. I've done it myself.

I don't like his mafia reads in post 104. Lack of reasoning always makes me suspicious. Smells of fish.

When pushed about his vote for SirPrimalForm, he changed his tune like Vinheteiro trying to attract a girl's attention (YouTube link). Suspicious.

I especially don't like his pushing the idea of double lynch. The possibility of losing three non-scum on Day 1 is a possibility that should make us all a little scared. Which I guess I need to address further.

Absolutely. Every Day 1 lynch is a mistake. It's basically firing at random into a crowd.

No-lynch is an even worse mistake, that's the only reason we lynch. At least firing randomly we can see who got fingerprints on the gun and who knew to dodge out of the way.

Yeeesh... I was going to keep a trick up my sleeve for scum-sniping on Day 2, but I guess I should explain it.

Lynching even with a lack of majority means that wagons are rather less informative than usual. Scum don't need to hop on a wagon in order to get someone lynched. They can hem and haw and point fingers without ever getting on the train. That way if the lynchee is scum, they can point out that they said so all along. And if the lynchee is town, they can claim they felt something was off and so didn't want to get on the wagon.

It's super easy for scum to drop their vote anywhere and sit on it. They know someone's going to die and they might even be lucky enough to be sitting where they help two people die.

If I was in a position that was going to lead to double lynching today, I'd rather vote no-lynch.

N.B. this applies most strongly to Day 1. Day 2 and on, I'm all for the possibility of lynching the two scummiest by manipulating the vote system. But not Day 1.

Back to JoeSapphire.

I'm also not a fan of his "reads." He doesn't actually say who he thinks is scum. It looks like Information Instead of Analysis (IIoA). (Emphasis mine.)

In the end, he votes P1na without "a decent reason" (his phrase).

Upping my scummy read from 3 to 2.

Reasons: lack of reasoning for mafia predictions, playing for the crowd, pushing double lynch, and posting IIoA.


ZFR: 4 -> 4

I don't like meta-reads. ZFR is all about meta-reads. Bad start.

That being said, he's consistently following his meta-reads.

He did push back on my assessment of voting no-lynch, I appreciate that.

Other than that, I am still unsure. He's posted frequently, but created little content. His voting is consistent with his methods.

ZFR remains a 4.

Reasons: lack of content, pushing on misconceptions.


SirPrimalform: 5 -> 4

Started poking ZFR for the random vote. Interesting how they each claim to be voting for the other based on the other's reaction to the poking.

All this meta-reading, ugh. Makes it hard to get straight talk out of anyone. Everything is guts and feelings.

I am having a lot of difficulty getting a read on SirPrimalform. He's said nothing that could be taken wrong. Which is in itself suspicious.

SirPrimalform becomes a 4.

Reasons: saying nothing.

That's true, but you unvoting would not have triggered a lynch. Leading only matters at the EoD and at the time of writing we hadn't even had the decision bell. The only time your concern would have been valid is if we were near the end of phase 2. If you'd unvoted and then the day had suddenly ended then what you said could have happened, but not otherwise.

It's my natural charm. Just ask the players in game #53.

Unhappy with Ixamyakxim's poor reading skills. He manages to see that he's self voting, but he doesn't notice the bolded "It is now Phase 2" right above it? Town needs to be reading the thread carefully. It's often a scumtell when a player is frequently missing or misreading posts.

I'm on the edge of pushing supplementscene to a 1 on my patented Scum-O-Meter. If he's not actually scum, he's at least pretending to be scum. Either way, he needs to be lynched.

On that note:
Care to explain how a single vote is an established wagon? By that definition, I am currently on my own "established wagon" because I'm not voting.

Don't worry, I'll rectify that.

I want to lynch supplementscene, but it seems like that's not happening today. My second strongest read is JoeSapphire, for reasons explained above. Hence,

Vote JoeSapphire

Eeeegh. Rough night.

1. lol

2. Hmmm. Ok, forget the vote part - who are you putting in the "veteran team" there? Who specifically are you having trouble reading? You don't recall cristi played in the last game you played in here (and her team won, flawlessly)? Albeit, as I recall she did lurk through D1 and you didn't stick around beyond that ;)

But the first question holds - can you be more specific there?

That. As much as the urge is always there, it definitely requires delicate handling.

Maybe this is my illusion from a limited data set, but my perception is that this is your standard D1 and that, while the basic model persists, you get more polished as the game goes on and you become more informed.

Would you say that's a fair assessment, or no?
______

As for the double vote question, it's the brig all over again imo. Ultimately I think if we played with this feature 100 times, agent would be proved to be correct statistically. Whether it could work to town's advantage in a single game?

As he notes, it can easily be manipulated D1 (albeit this was yogs, and the game balance was out of whack but note how well yogs manipulated the brig on D3 in game #53 to maf advantage)

I'm going to repeat this again, but Parity Cop is not a normal cop and really needs time to work, esp in this setup. Things that shorten the game lessen the value of the role siiiignificantly.

And I actually miscalculated earlier - while yes, it's only possible for 4 people to die in a single cycle, I neglected the lyncher. Up to 5 people could leave the game in a single cycle (lyncher target co-lynched, lyncher wins/leaves, vengeful lynched, venged, NK). D3 could start with 5 people standing if we double-lynch twice.

So if the consensus is that we're double lynching all the way, just be aware that if it does go bad, it could be really bad.

But if you're an optimist who likes to go for the glory, or just like dramatic swingy moments, then...ok?


Given the unusual voting structure (not unlike MU), combined with the ambiguous deadline (unlike MU), I think the more immediate question is how claims should get handled. For once I ask the question with no clear opinion.

I'd say that's pretty fair. I usually feel extremely lost at the beginning of the game because the unknown nature of... pretty much everything means that I'm overwhelmed with data that I have no way of sorting. The later we get in the game, the more I have a framework within which to analyse the data.

I imagine this goes for most people, but I think I might feel it more acutely than most.