Yep, yogsloth, he is totally an evil person. :)

When people are posting infrequently I quite enjoy this style of post, though it would be overwhelming if all 14 of us did it multiple times a day. So no objection to you doing the same tomorrow.

Most of your argument above strikes me as psychological, which at least seems more honest. Other arguments have largely centered around it being bad strategically for the town, which I still don't find persuasive.

But we play games to have fun, so if a no vote strikes you as less fun, well, I'm sympathetic to that even if I don't yet believe it's a superior play. In 6 months most of us are probably more likely to remember if we had fun or not than who all was on the winning team. Though we'll probably remember whoever was the most audacious in victory - whether it's Wyrm's combativeness or...well, whatever it is Kryp is doing.

I never said nicely balanced, just balanced. Plus it's not a rule :-P

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If a 2-vote was 1-shot, it may not be too overpowered.

I have hazy memories of a party I once attended that started off with something like that. Very hazy memories.

I'm back with another wall of text. Woohoo!

I TOTALLY agree with you here. WIFOM is a naturally occurring part of Mafia. I still don't much like your deliberate creation of WIFOM, though.

I like it because all too often people don't think about the consequences of their actions, especially here in Forum Mafia. Also, it shows that trentonlf is smart enough to point out the possible consequences, thereby decreasing the chance that those consequences come to pass.

I will when I work out something :)

Sorry Bookwyrm, but... exactly.

Oh no! Krypsyn is doing it again!

I would agree with you here. I was done with this conversation before it had started.

I admit that it's a potentially good idea when you need a lynch, but I don't think lurkers should be voted for simply because they're lurkers. IMHO.

Again, I agree.

I liked that :) Didn't you?
Problem is that it would be all too easy for a scum to put something like that in. Actually, it was probably a bad idea for me to put it there, but I had to make the reference.

I actually like posts like these (as evidenced by my own massive walls of text), so keep it up and more power to you.

Me too, most of the time.

I never said that, it was yogs here in this post

Although I will say that it seems we will be put under a deadline before any consensus is reached for lynch or not. I can see why Krypsyn is having fun with the RVS time, there's not much info to go on or speculate on so might as well have a good time until there is some actual information to use.

I don't know if I'd agree people don't think about the consequences - the choice to mention them or not can be a gambit in its own right. Not mentioning is a way to play coy or oblivious or hope that others might miss it or assume they can twist it back on you; putting them on the table guarantees everyone will see it, but is also an attempt to take control of the framing, as you observed.

WIFOM, certainly, but I'm not taking any value out of trent's observation at this point, other than that it was an attempt to control the narrative, whether real or bluff. It's worth remembering perhaps for analysis later depending on how the day plays out.

I think the real question is whether the imminent deadline prompts an actual wagon to form on anybody, and if so, on whom. Kryp has kept up the link posts, but has been interspersing some actual thoughts. So I'm increasingly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt to see if he plays differently come day 2. I think I'm pretty squarely off of Kryp at least for round 1.

IIRC bookwyrm noted that he may have overplayed his hand, and has certainly flirted with being the scummiest. In the absence of any real viable alternative FoS, that may well stay true. Personally I think there are 3 others I'd vote for over wyrm, but I'm not inclined yet to put names on the table, since I think I might just be being persnickety about style in those cases more than substance.

I'll try and make time to re-read their posts tonight. Do we have a sense of what sort of deadline window we're likely to get - 24 hours / 36 hours?

I, for one, appreciate this level of commentary. I do my best to read through posts and pick out things that seem odd, but one person will invariably miss things.

I still hold to my opinion of Day 1 full role claims as being a town win, but makes the game rather boring. Maybe some day I'll prove it and run a game where everyone claims Day 0 in the OP (giving the mafia a full list of roles and letting them pick their counter-claims). They will still lose.

One reason to lynch lurkers as a potential policy lynch is they have no record to help you in later days anyway. Also, since lurkers often disappear, eliminating them early helps keep the active numbers up, so one doesn't no-lynch. Someone mentioned the werewolf game, but in that game we had some lurkers who were nowhere to be found which crippled our chances at getting a real lynch.

As to the possibility of lynching Krypsen, I'm not sure it would be a good idea, it might cripple my YouTube stock...

That is essentially what CSPVG's game was. All possible roles were known, and Mafia didn't have to make up roles at all. Scum did lose in the end, but it was a close thing.

Agreed. But, just because someone posts a lot, it doesn't necessarily follow that they have said anything of note. They could, after all, just be posting useless links to videos or something. ;)

Google does have me on speed-dial, but you shouldn't let that stop you.

I see lurking in two different senses, infrequent posts and mostly meaningless posts...

One could argue Krypsen is actively lurking by not contributing at all.
JMich is almost always a lurker.
Leonard clearly now.
Christigale hasn't posted very much.

But it is a bot early to call anyone a lurker yet.

Some players don't really show up until we have a deadline, so its better to assess that question at the appropriate time.

Totes.