Mafia CLVI: Charity Mafia: -- Pure of Heart Win!

[Happymeal]

Happymeal, if you meant for me to start listening to The Moon & Antarctica and become emotionally paralyzed, you've succeeded.

If there's any one album everyone should listen to, it's that one, in my opinion.

[Happymeal]

I meant justy, yes, thanks for the correction
More than the logic behind his vote, it was its timing, the fact that he came exactly after Tello pointed the ratio thing out and voted for you on his first post. Rushy vote could be coming from scum eager to place an early vote... we all know how hard it can become to set on a vote later on the day...

I'm wondering, but what else do you think supports this? As in, what other of Justy's actions do you think assist in ascertaining his alignment? I know for a fact that if Justy were to try to do the whole "get aggressive" in a match, this would be the way he would execute it, regardless of alignment.

I just don't get harb's plan, and how it works out. I target a scumread... what if I'm the vig? I'm giving my scumread the power to shoot someone tonight. What if I'm targeted by a doc? Isn't this pretty much just fire everything randomly?

It's good I finally get to talk about this. I think I'm within agreement with Harb's plan. But here's what I'm wondering, do we still lynch? So, basically, we're lynching the collective vote and then lynching another scum read? I think that's a little too much to be honest, there's a lot of ways I can imagine the scum possibly messing with it, but I also think taking the risk that early might not be optimal. On top of that, there's the chance that scum kill our secondary target. I think this whole "kill another scum read" should only be reserved for policy killing of an inactive.

So I agree with the following of Harb's plan:

Split into two groups. The collective town votes for two things:

1. they vote their towniest player and then one group targets him with all abilities in that group.
2. They vote for yes or no to a policy shot (the only one acceptable is fuddin). If we do not agree on a policy lynch, then the second group uses all their abilities on a player voted "most scummy". With that guy, the doc and vig (or just vig if it's a policy shot) use their abilities on one of the guys they trust targeting that guy.

I don't like the idea of going gung ho with the vig shot, we could end up in a worst case scenario tomorrow if we allow it through. I think we should play it safe and adhere to this plan with these adjustments.

[Happymeal]

Oh wait, I made a mistake with that plan. Alright, revised plan:

We vote two people the most townie. Town A will use all the abilities granted to him on the most scummy player. Town B will be targeted by the other group and then use the abilities granted to him on whoever he wants to. Policy shot, if we have one will be targeted by town B and vig will shoot him while doc will use his ability to protect either Town A or B. If we don't have a policy lynch, doc and vig will use their powers to end target most scummy. That means they will target Town A.

What do you guys think? This neutralizes almost all effects of the night game while giving us the most control without revealing people.

[Happymeal]

It also allows us to investigate most scummy. We can also vote a second most scummy for town b because it's possible town b gets investigative powers. So basically we kill several birds with one stone.

We first kill off anyone we want to policy lynch and if we don't, then we investigate one of our scum reads.

[Happymeal]

Also, it avoids the unnecessary vig kill at nights.

[Happymeal]

As for my scumreads, currently I'm thinking that there is probably a scum on the Sjg wagon (or Sjg himself is scum). The "slip" was interesting, but I think that the people that voted Sjg should know a bit better than to just shout "SLIP!" and vote Sjg. If Sjg is town, then the mafia would love a chance to off him D1.

I find this odd that you say that scum is on the sjg wagon yet you also are under the belief that scum could also be sjg. Do you believe that a scum Justy would be so eager to jump on a sjg bandwagon so early into the game? It's just as easy to dismiss it as a mistake, but one of the earlier votes on sjg must be a scum partner trying to get the vote wagon onto his chum? How does that benefit them?

@Justy

I forgot to mention this earlier and it bother me. It was your unvote. I get that you no longer wished to pursue Sjg because of his supposed slip, but you stated earlier that you were attempting to utilize aggressive maneuvers like this in order to improve your play. You said something about talking to Zoomzip. Why did you unvote then? If your attempt was to change to get votes in earlier to pressure and get what you want done, how does unvoting function to help you achieve that?

[Happymeal]

Justy didn't abandon the case immediately, only once it was clear that the slip narrative on Sjg was going nowhere. Nothing had changed with the actual case, and the unvote came with no explanation. That's exactly the behaviour I'd expect from someone who knew their vote was in an unjustifiable place: scum.

So what reason do you think the unvote came in with then? Obviously this is something you think a scum would do, why do you think a scum would do this? How would they be benefited by this?

[Happymeal]

I think I addressed a majority of the pages that I hadn't since I last posted. I kind of wanted a full page of Happymeal because I like to one up people, but alas, it did not occur.

[Thyrfing]

Firstly, I think it's fair to assume that there's one scum among {Keirador, justy, Sjg, Telleo}. I think that scum would want townSjg dead ASAP if possible, and his slip there might be a perfect opportunity to off him.

Can you develop this a little further? Why is it fair to assume that?
Also your whole argument seems to come from the second affirmation, that scum would want townSjg dead ASAP... why is then sjg included in the initial scum pool?

I mean, you think sjg is a scum candidate for you, and then develop a reasoning based on the fact that sjg is town as a basis for your vote?

[Thyrfing]

Thyrfing, what value do you see in "not planning" that isn't fulfilled by the two groups plan? What value do you see in a cig remaining secret?

I just don't see any value in the plan... If understood correctly you suggest that a group of people selected at random targets their best townread and the other group targets their best scumread?
As you yourself said, per the plan investigative and protective roles can end up directed against scumreads, but I am also concerned that townies with "negative" roles (for example a blocker) end up targeted against townreads just because the plan dictates so.

Hold on, this doesn't seem to jive with your previous thoughts on my plan expressed here:

We give up a lot for this, in terms of having potential investigative roles pointed at scum targets. We're still likely to end up with a dead townie cause we don't have a lot of information to go on yet but at least it'll be someone that generated some suspicion somehow.

I'm making this up on the fly, I haven't put a lot of thought into second order implications here.

Alternatively, we can call for the Vig to reveal if there is one. Then at least we'll know.

That could work... but again we are going to let people explain their behaviour based on town organisation... so no

The only concern you seem to be expressing here is about lack of accountability. Now I'm asking about how my plan still harms that accountability and you're talking about totally different objections.

As for speaking to your new objections: If I'm a role that wants to target townies, I target a scumread who is in the "target townie" group. If I'm wrong, I'm pointed at somebody's townread at least. If I'm right, then likely the scum is pointed at a townie anyway and whatever positive effect I'm directing is still pointed at a townie. Right?

Not so sure about the second question tbh... A town aligned vig can be useful towards the end game if we are able to effectively direct it... but honestly I am not so hard opposed to it... I am just generally against role reveals and don't see any benefit for its reveal on the other hand.

Fair enough. What do you think about how much effort we're putting into containing a vig? If we knew there wasn't one, we could move on to other things it seems. Also, if we have a vig then forcing a claim now means scum can't claim it later, when it's safer because more townies are dead or there hasn't been a vig kill. If we force "vig/not vig" claims, and choose an order based on scumreads, we can also force scum to commit to a "not vig" claim because they can't anticipate whether there will be a CC.

Ok, I can see the benefits of a vig reveal now. Still sitting on the fence with regards to that (in that I can't see definite unbalancing reasons for doing it nor for opposing it...)

Then, when you asked again about your plan I went and reread your plan thanks to the link you gave. I had totally misunderstood it and thought it was more in the lines of condude's plan. Also, your own comment about roles pointing to townies right at the end of the post made me think more about this aspect, so it's easy to understand that after rereading the plan my thoughts where directed there. And still not sold on that. If I'm a blocker and in the target scumread group, I will be targeting someone that is likely going to end up blocking a townread. Does that make any sense or I haven't understood the mechanics yet?
In terms of accountability, all it does is make people choose whether they want their powers directed at townies or at scum... so I must admit it's not much of an issue here.

Also I am interested in knowing why giving now a different reason is such an issue for you, but you didn't seem to have a problem with that during sjg's case on condude, based on exactly the same reasoning.

As I said more in later, I'm still not caught up.. just a couple of quick thoughts for now.