Mafiascum.net

I'm not scaring you. Forcing the kill puts us in a much better position than not forcing the kill.

Not forcing the kill while lynching has a surprising chance of landing us in a lylo of me/massive/scum if none of our other lynches hit scum which isn't even slightly difficult to figure out, just so you know.

↑ Davsto wrote:Not forcing the kill while lynching has a surprising chance of landing us in a lylo of me/massive/scum if none of our other lynches hit scum which isn't even slightly difficult to figure out, just so you know.

it has a 0% chance of doing this actually

so i have no idea what you're talking about
you mislynch me
scum shoots you

you block scum and don't die (no lylo)
you miss scum and do die (you're not alive in lylo)

the boon a no kill has is that ank actually gets to have utility and scum won't be able to kill and not give a shit about a 1v1
if you mislynch me and you miss blocking farside and hiplop tracks ank to you, they will 1v1
if that scenario happens after a no lynch, they will 1v1 while we have 2 lynches left meaning we win

Don't worry, I'll be sure to take heed of your advice once you're dead.

Does anyone else note the convenience of him not thinking of this for the entire rest of the day, and then once he gets put at L-1 and actually has a large risk of being lynched (seriously, that's the exact timing), he suddenly comes up with this amaaaazing plan which doesn't require his lynch.

We can still do this whole force-scum-to-kill thing, sure, but why no lynch to do it? It seems backwards. The whole point of forcing scum to not make a kill or make a kill and clear someone is that if they choose A we get more lynches, and if they choose B we get clears. What's the point when the best we get out of option A is being stuck in the same position as before?

I thought about the plan when I asked Antihero his happily ever after rules.

You nitpicking on random and stupid shit instead of the plan itself is frustrating.

If scum are forced to kill at 6 players, we get 2 clears when they do (davesto + hiplop clear), and ank gets a useful investigation. When we lynch at 6 players, if hiplop catches scum we don't automatically win and ank will get 0 useful results.

I'm sorry for having an arbitrary amount of scepticism when someone I've been scumreading for a good portion of the game suddenly comes up with a plan.

Scum aren't forced to kill, you realise that? I guarantee that it is most likely to end up with a cycle of no lynch -> no kill -> repeat because scum gets absolutely no benefit from killing, whilst we get a benefit from lynching, so all it's gonna do is go around a few times until we get bored and lynch you anyway.

And if that happens, reasonable enough.
If there are people that are not you that realize that there's absolutely no reason we should lynch until scum kills, then scum are forced to kill. It would be better if we had happily ever after rules , but, you know.

But we don't have happily ever after rules, so the game will keep looping with scum not killing because they know that attempt a kill will turn out much worse than not killing, and since a single scum saying "nah don't kill" takes a lot less effort than making 4 townspeople agree to a no lynch, town is going to lynch before scum kills, basic logic.

I get what you're saying, but without happily-ever-after rules, the tactic is worthless, as scum have absolutely no incentive to perform a kill, since by making a kill they (a) clear a town (b) put themselves at risk of getting lynched since we'll stop no lynching. And due to there being one less player and one more confirmed town, there's a much bigger risk for scum being lynched after a kill than without a kill. In the end, all that would happen is that we would eventually just lynch someone, ending up in the exact same scenario as if we lynched someone today.

Ergo, the best option is to lynch someone today, as it avoids the moral-sapping loop which we could repeat many times in the vain hope that the last scum will do something, despite it objectively being worse for them than not doing something.

If we get down to three and it's me/Davsto/someone, I will lynch Davsto. Just sayin'.

I need to really re-read some stuff because I while logically it should be Nacho, I just can't get past farside and I can't get myself past ruling out the possibility of the rest of you using my forced watch on Nacho to clear yourself for one night.

The cycle could continue if Nacho is scum and everyone is follow the leader.



Still betting money on Anka scum

still town

Not surprised.
I think scum targetted you, but no one listens to me

If scum legitimately targeted Nacho last night, then that should be a big red flag that scum are planning on taking you and me to LyLo, for the record.

Davesto needs to target hiplop overnight so there can be a confirmed town when he dies

If he gets in here and changes his target that's fine but if he doesn't he needs to target hiplop

I'm planning on targeting Anka tonight. If scum did try to kill Nacho last night - unlikely, but possible - he, in theory, has an incriminating result, and is worth keeping alive.

hiplop should probably track farside.

↑ Davsto wrote:I'm planning on targeting Anka tonight. If scum did try to kill Nacho last night - unlikely, but possible - he, in theory, has an incriminating result, and is worth keeping alive.

hiplop should probably track farside.

please!!!

I feel like 434 clears Ank further. I don't think Vedith would try to set up a counterwagon on a buddy, especially not one like this which feels like a genuine logic-based push.

Wow, 210 is a huge slip. Vedith says it's likely there's one scum on his wagon and one off, and forgets that he himself is the third and to account for that. Wingback caught him but he explained it away, and we all forgot about it, but now seems like a good time to look at that wagon and see who's where:

On Vedith (VC @ 171): Concrete Angels, Thor665, Cataphant, Hecatia Lapislazuli

Interestingly, only unflipped person on that list is Cataphant who is hiplop.

747: Would Vedith-scum really ask his known-scum-partner to elaborate their scumread on their third scum-partner? Probably not.

1176: Would he scumread both his partners in a three-man scumread?

1276: Probably clears Davsto.

Soft-defends Nacho: 1231, 1270, [http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p7371232]1601[/url], 1631, 1764, 2194

----

Hey Davsto, pay attention. I watched Nacho last night too and already gave the results. If anyone tried to kill him, it was you or hiplop.

↑ massive wrote:Hey Davsto, pay attention. I watched Nacho last night too and already gave the results. If anyone tried to kill him, it was you or hiplop.

D'oh, I'm tired and at school

Best bet is still jailing one of farside/anka and having hiplop track the other. I'll jail Ank still, though.

Also, has Nacho been lynched yet? Or is he only at L-1? I believe someone unvoted at some point.

I'm lynched. Jailing Ank is stupid.

oh, joy.
I'm wrong, I'm still not lynched.

Hiplop tracking people is useless; at best, he finds scum and 1v1s them. Hiplop should be one of your suspects anyways so that is stupidly useless.