Mafiascum.net

In post 24, Tazaro wrote:

In post 22, Tazaro wrote:

In post 9, Micc wrote:Guys this game is usually a lot easier if you roll good roles not negative utility.

VOTE: shortaru

Not antagonism i.m.o., just kind of policy-lynchey

saying that if shortaru is compulsive killer of the young, then that is a policy lynch worthy role.

No it's not.

There are ways to work around the negative utility without triggering the kill, which is why I claimed it immediately.

In post 24, Tazaro wrote:

In post 22, Tazaro wrote:

In post 9, Micc wrote:Guys this game is usually a lot easier if you roll good roles not negative utility.

VOTE: shortaru

Not antagonism i.m.o., just kind of policy-lynchey

saying that if shortaru is compulsive killer of the young, then that is a policy lynch worthy role.

Just a note: my meaning was that that was my interpretation of what Micc was saying, not an avowal of what I was saying.

In post 26, Tazaro wrote:

In post 24, Tazaro wrote:

In post 22, Tazaro wrote:

In post 9, Micc wrote:Guys this game is usually a lot easier if you roll good roles not negative utility.

VOTE: shortaru

Not antagonism i.m.o., just kind of policy-lynchey

saying that if shortaru is compulsive killer of the young, then that is a policy lynch worthy role.

Just a note: my meaning was that that was my interpretation of what Micc was saying, not an avowal of what I was saying.

So you're saying a list mod would not know that it's possible to bypass the negative utility of a CCK?

Hi people! This is my first game of GIM. Is the start always this... insane? I'm unsure how seriously to take anything that went down in the last page and a bit.

the real questions is why he voted for you, shortaru, if not because of the negative utility, then?

*question, singular.

In post 23, shortaru wrote:

In post 20, Gamma Emerald wrote:Oi Tazaro, I mentioned sending antagonism, what’s your response?
As fa Mister Shortaru’s question, I dont get what you’re asking about there, buddy

You don't know the difference between scummy & anti-town?

I do know the difference, ya little palooka. It’s just I don’t know what part of the statement you’re askin’ that about, see?

In post 28, KittenLicks wrote:Hi people! This is my first game of GIM. Is the start always this... insane? I'm

entirely

unsure how seriously to take anything that went down in the last page and a bit.

Hello little kitty cat, what brings ya round here? As for what’s been happenin’, this is honestly a tame start compared to some of the more complex iteration of this setup.

Hi

In post 29, Tazaro wrote:the real questions is why he voted for you, shortaru, if not because of the negative utility, then?

RVS, perhaps?

In post 31, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 23, shortaru wrote:

In post 20, Gamma Emerald wrote:Oi Tazaro, I mentioned sending antagonism, what’s your response?
As fa Mister Shortaru’s question, I dont get what you’re asking about there, buddy

You don't know the difference between scummy & anti-town?

I do know the difference, ya little palooka. It’s just I don’t know what part of the statement you’re askin’ that about, see?

Do you think Micc is being scummy or anti-town?

I don’t think Micc’s antagonism is really either fa now.

In post 36, Gamma Emerald wrote:I don’t think Micc’s antagonism is really either fa now.

Them what is up with

In post 14, Gamma Emerald wrote:Also Mister Micc, unfortunately no one had any permission to select the roles they were given. Not sure if I like the antagonism you’re throwing down, see

If it's neither scummy nor anti-town, why do you care?

As for the TCCK, it's not nearly so negative utility as to be a policy lynch? I can't be bothered to look up the stats, but the odds of an innocent child even existing aren't exactly high.

In post 32, Gamma Emerald wrote: Hello little kitty cat, what brings ya round here? As for what’s been happenin’, this is honestly a tame start compared to some of the more complex iteration of this setup.

Well, I'm happy it's not a more complex setup then, I guess. My heart can only take so much excitement.

In post 37, shortaru wrote:

In post 36, Gamma Emerald wrote:I don’t think Micc’s antagonism is really either fa now.

Them what is up with

In post 14, Gamma Emerald wrote:Also Mister Micc, unfortunately no one had any permission to select the roles they were given. Not sure if I like the antagonism you’re throwing down, see

If it's neither scummy nor anti-town, why do you care?

Well I took it kinda personal cuz I myself have a negative utility role, see?

In post 39, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 37, shortaru wrote:

In post 36, Gamma Emerald wrote:I don’t think Micc’s antagonism is really either fa now.

Them what is up with

In post 14, Gamma Emerald wrote:Also Mister Micc, unfortunately no one had any permission to select the roles they were given. Not sure if I like the antagonism you’re throwing down, see

If it's neither scummy nor anti-town, why do you care?

Well I took it kinda personal cuz I myself have a negative utility role, see?

Is this a #metoo moment?

Nevermind, you claimed first. I thought somebody else had that role.

I'm not a fan of Tazaro, ATM.

Not enough suspicion for a serious vote yet, though.

RE: is Great(er(est))/(Grand) Idea Mafia always this crazy: Yes.
THis one is, as someone else said, rather tame comparatively. much less crazy claim action going on day 1 than I expected.

We aren't lynching the compulsive child killer today, that is a decently verifiable claim, with only 1 innocent child card in the deck, at worst we lose 1 player.


Mod has not confirmed innocent child's innocence, so that was a gambit claim, and therefore the childkiller isn't a *large* threat currently.

if we see an UNCLAIMED innocent child flip, as well as a second flip at night, it goes a decent way to clearing him.

In post 44, Maruchan wrote:if we see an UNCLAIMED innocent child flip, as well as a second flip at night, it goes a decent way to clearing him.

FYI, my role specifies that I immediately dayvig innocent child claims.

I wouldn't call compulsive child killer verifiable at all. And post 8 pretty antitown in mindset. I say we wagon shortaru.

predit: you might want to read it again. that's not how compulsive child killer is meant to work afaik

In post 46, Micc wrote:predit: you might want to read it again. that's not how compulsive child killer is meant to work afaik

Reread it. It paraphrases what the wiki says about compulsive child killer mechanics.

In other words, day kill.

In post 46, Micc wrote:And post 8 pretty antitown in mindset.

Doesn't make it a scum mindset.

I outed my role to protect the IC. If they're going to be dumb enough to claim on page 1, they deserve to be killed.

does your role PM indicate how people fake revealing as IC are handled? 45 seems to indicate you would still day vig them.