Mafiascum.net

In post 4771, Nero Cain wrote:seems like a scum attempt to smear more people that have been wrong.

This is literally the first reasonable stance you've taken today.

And I disagree that being able to hold people accountable for their reads is scummy. How the fuck do you catch scum if not by judging what people say and do?

Votecount 3.192:

Mastina (6): Firebringer, Nero Cain, Whemestar, Gamma Emerald, Shiro, Varsoon
Varsoon (4): Northsidegal, Creature, Porkens, Chickadee
Nicorobin (1): jjh927
Lady Angel: (0): Skygazer
Aristophanes (0):
Jingle (0):
jjh927 (0):
Northsidegal (0):
Porkens (0):
Vecna (0):
Firebringer (0):
Chickadee (0):
Gamma Emerald (0):
Invisibility (0):
KuroiXHF (0):
Whemestar (0):
Skygazer (0):
Creature (0):
Nero Cain (0):
The Meme Men (0):

Not Voting: Sora, Aristophanes, KuroiXHF, Mastina, Lady Angel, Jingle, Nicorobin, Invisibility, Vecna

With 20 alive it's 11 to lynch.

The day will end in (expired on 2018-11-04 17:00:00).

In post 4775, Jingle wrote:How the fuck do you catch scum if not by judging what people say and do?

ppl are already saying and doing or not doing things. We can still judge them based on that so it's not like we really "need" these wagons before Mastina gladiats to be able to scum hunt. You two have a REALLY REALLY rigid view of this game and that's extremely worrisome.

But we're not judging them based on that. That's literally the whole point. If there were pushes being made, the days would go faster and the gladiates would come more frequently. I was at L-1 for maybe two pages. I advocated my own hammer. It didn't come. That is the only L-1 wagon that has happened so far this game.

Literally the only one.

I'm not the one saying there's no information to go on. I'm the one saying no one is doing anything with that information, and putting all of our eggs in the mastina hipfiring basket doesn't solve that problem. Lynching mastina for not hipfiring ALSO doesn't solve that problem. And it can't possibly just be scum that aren't doing anything with that information, because it's more than 6 people who are doing it.

In post 4774, Lady Angel wrote:

In post 4763, Gamma Emerald wrote:That feels like misrepping the facts. mastina glaciated, rather than ya going on and lynching. I feel like you’re really trying to play both sides of the field at this point.

I mean, those were the leading lynch with something like 48 hours left to the end of the day. We were doing a terrible job of actually lynching anyone, and the fact that mastina gladiated would not have changed that.

We at least had some votes on something, so we could push that through at dl

Home.

i did not read 188-192

I, for one, have no problem with RC's modding here. The game is active and he's doing what he has to do.

jingle i don't get why you want to just defend mastina for all of this. mastina has a role that drastically alters the game state. So when mastina comes in here and says "this isn't my fault this is everyone eles fault for game state" its a load of horse shit. She has control over game state that we don't have and undo anything we do.

its like say you were in a court room. you knew full well you can participate in the court and potentially make a brilliant case that helps you out but a person can undo everything you do and overturns it in a instant to proceed in a way they want. Do you want to participate knowing this?

Do you want to participate after seeing and being apart of that? No? Wow. I guess your the problem.

My original thought was that Jingle was scum and the no lynches helped his team so he's treating Mastina like the 6th/7th scum member.

But then I also kinda think Mastina is pretty scummy so...

Voting for a No Lynch in a closed setup is the stupidest fucking play town could ever make.
Especially if this shit is supposed to be role madness.
I already know, from my role, that the mod was designing roles with specific days in mind, because I couldn't activate my role on Day 1.
So there's no way I'm voting for a fucking no lynch here.

No Lynching is such a garbage move that's against the whole fucking thesis of mafia that I've outright made it not even an option in several of my recent games.

How do we know Scum doesn't get some role that powers up every fucking night and that artificially dragging out the game isn't screwing us over?
Do we have any reason to believe that town has roles sufficiently designed to benefit from extra nights being on the table versus the literal anything that scum might have?
Stop trying to play CLOSED THEME SETUPS like they're semi-opens or even normals, you absolute simpletons
How fucking moronic do you have to be to just say that it'll be fine to give up town's lynch SEVERAL DAYS IN A ROW
IN A GAME
WHERE LITERALLY
THE ONLY WAY TO WIN THE GAME
IS TO LYNCH SCUM

If a part of the design of a setup benefits town the most to coming to the solution of no lynching, that's bad setup design.
If it's unintentional, then I don't want to be complicit in gaming an unintentional aspect of the setup because .

Mafia is literally built around 2 fucking actionable mechanics
1. An uninformed majority votes for lynches to try to eliminate scum.
2. An informed minority kills town to try to eliminate them.

That's it.
Any setup that breaks that CORE DYNAMIC of the game fails to be a mafia setup.
Playing in a way that's contrary to that CORE DYNAMIC is outright bad play that is far more likely to lose the game and ruin its integrity than to provide reliable results.

I'm cool with playing along with the whole gladiate garbage gambit, whatever.
What I'm not cool with is ending the day on another No Lynch after 200 fucking pages and nearly two months.

Does there exist a context in which town should No Lynch or scum should No Kill?
Sure.
Yes.
Absolutely.
It's super fringe and unlikely to happen in any game that's actually well designed, using normal roles and balance and an odd number of starting players, but there are situations where it could be a more effective strategy than outright lynching or killing.
But never, ever in a closed setup, especially a non-normal role-madness closed setup.
Like what the fuck
How do you not get this
How does anyone not get this

In post 4783, Firebringer wrote:jingle i don't get why you want to just defend mastina for all of this. mastina has a role that drastically alters the game state. So when mastina comes in here and says "this isn't my fault this is everyone eles fault for game state" its a load of horse shit. She has control over game state that we don't have and undo anything we do.

its like say you were in a court room. you knew full well you can participate in the court and potentially make a brilliant case that helps you out but a person can undo everything you do and overturns it in a instant to proceed in a way they want. Do you want to participate knowing this?

Do you want to participate after seeing and being apart of that? No? Wow. I guess your the problem.

So the problem is that mastina could use her role in a way that demotivates you, so you're not going to play the game. And so you're going to policy lynch her because she's not using her role in the way that demotivates you. Your logic is impeccable.

In post 4789, Varsoon wrote:Mafia is literally built around 2 fucking actionable mechanics
1. An uninformed majority votes for lynches to try to eliminate scum.
2. An informed minority kills town to try to eliminate them.

That's it.
Any setup that breaks that CORE DYNAMIC of the game fails to be a mafia setup.
Playing in a way that's contrary to that CORE DYNAMIC is outright bad play that is far more likely to lose the game and ruin its integrity than to provide reliable results.

I'm cool with playing along with the whole gladiate garbage gambit, whatever.
What I'm not cool with is ending the day on another No Lynch after 200 fucking pages and nearly two months.

In post 4790, Varsoon wrote:Does there exist a context in which town should No Lynch or scum should No Kill?
Sure.
Yes.
Absolutely.
It's super fringe and unlikely to happen in any game that's actually well designed, using normal roles and balance and an odd number of starting players, but there are situations where it could be a more effective strategy than outright lynching or killing.
But never, ever in a closed setup, especially a non-normal role-madness closed setup.
Like what the fuck
How do you not get this
How does anyone not get this

Fuck right the fuck off.

Like, take that high horse and shove it up your ass.

There are objectively situations in which it is better to No Lynch. For example, follow the cop. If town can recognize a correct sequence of roles that increase their odds of winning by working together, then they should do so. It's not morally wrong to attempt to use all of your tools to win the game, it's playing the fucking game.

The ability to recognize when No Lynching or Massclaiming is useful as opposed to harmful is a skill, and saying otherwise is an insult to the people who use that skill.

I enjoy putting the little pieces together, solving the puzzle, and squeezing the value out of the roles. If a No Lynch is part of that, I'm going to No Lynch, or at least argue for it.

To say that the way I play mafia is worse than the way you play mafia is conceited and insulting. To say that it's not mafia is insulting. To say that any setups that are breakable are badly designed is disgusting. If you want to balance your games around enforcing a lynch, then good for you, you can do that. If you want to come into other games and say "What you're doing is morally wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to play that way" you're prioritizing your ability to have fun over mine. I'm going to argue what I believe to be the best path to victory. If you don't want to, bully for you. But don't come in here and shove "You're not playing the game the right way" down my throat.

Jingle is scum too.

Cool. Vote to gladiate me or convince enough people to vote me for a real lynch.

Hey everyone, lynch Varsoon.

In post 4752, Varsoon wrote:Still think it's a lousy idea to no lynch several times in a row in a game where we aren't getting any mod-confirmed clears from it.

Except we will after Mastina dies and it turns out she wasnt lying.

In post 4792, Jingle wrote: There are objectively situations in which it is better to No Lynch.

I wrote this. Of course there are. In open and semi-open setups. In normal setups. This setup is neither.

For example, follow the cop.

Too bad that's not the case in this setup.

If town can recognize a correct sequence of roles that increase their odds of winning by working together, then they should do so.

And that's bad design.

It's not morally wrong to attempt to use all of your tools to win the game, it's playing the fucking game.

Look, if you want to play some awful 'let us all use mechanics to gamesolve' game, then go play open queue or some mishmash where that's the case. It's not a question of morality or being on some 'high horse', it's literally a different fucking game. You're arguing that town should use its tools--that's fine; when they fully understand the scope of the game and the tools at their disposal. We don't here. This is a closed rolemadness setup; the only tools I can be certain of are mod-confirmed ones, like what's in my own role PM and lynching mechanics.

The ability to recognize when No Lynching or Massclaiming is useful as opposed to harmful is a skill, and saying otherwise is an insult to the people who use that skill.

Never said anything about Massclaiming but any game solved by a Massclaim is also a poorly designed game. I'm sure you pride yourself on skills that exploit the flaws in mechanical game design, but I'd much rather play the rhetorical game of Mafia.

I enjoy putting the little pieces together, solving the puzzle, and squeezing the value out of the roles. If a No Lynch is part of that, I'm going to No Lynch, or at least argue for it.

Too bad a No Lynch should never be a part of that in a closed role madness game. I've run closed role madness setups my entire fucking career on this site, Jingle. I've personally designed games and helped design games in which scum gets stronger and stronger with subsequent night phases in order to combat town information creep and mitigate swing. As a moderator of such games, I have literally come to the conclusion that No Lynch mechanics are often a means to abuse such roles and are contrary to the entire point of the game of Mafia as No Lynching drives player apathy. Once again, there are situations in games where a No Lynch is a great idea--like 4 players alive in a 3v1 normal setup. Too bad that's not the case here.

To say that the way I play mafia is worse than the way you play mafia is conceited and insulting.

I'm not saying it's worse. I'm saying it's incredibly short-sighted and literally undermining the moderator in order to play in this way in a closed rolemadness game.

To say that it's not mafia is insulting.

Not here. Don't take it personally that you're wrong.

To say that any setups that are breakable are badly designed is disgusting.

Except that setups can and will be poorly designed and breakable. This is largely avoided in many queues and is the biggest problem in closed non-normal games. I have personally designed setups that I have known to be breakable. I have unintentionally designed poor mechanics for setups.

If you want to balance your games around enforcing a lynch, then good for you, you can do that. If you want to come into other games and say "What you're doing is morally wrong and you shouldn't be allowed to play that way" you're prioritizing your ability to have fun over mine.

Never said it was morally wrong, just absolutely moronic and I'll never support it because it's both anti-town play and, for me, not enjoyable or in the spirit of the game.

I'm going to argue what I believe to be the best path to victory. If you don't want to, bully for you. But don't come in here and shove "You're not playing the game the right way" down my throat.

If you're town, you really aren't.

Take your 'this is a personal attack' garbage and throw it away. I'm sorry if your ego takes a hit when you learn that your approach to a game isn't the most likely approach to win that game; get over it.
I can provide you with over ten different closed setups in which no lynching benefits scum players, if you want, but I don't think that site meta would change anything for you.
I could try to explain to you further that, unless you're scum, you only have mod-confirmed means of defeating scum, which means that no-lynching is literally giving up the primary means of winning the game while also potentially fuelling scum roles that would be boosted from a no lynch.
I could even explain that, based on there being no flavor from the unexpected no lynch outcome of Mastina's gladiate, RC did not balance this game around the notion that town would No Lynch several times, which indicates that RC did not consider how No Lynching might break the game in the favor of one alignment or the other.
I could literally point at this game as an indicator of how much No Lynching drives player apathy and is unhealthy for the sake of the actual game of mafia.

But if you're going to take all that shit personally and write it off as some moralistic assault on you when what I'm proposing is that we , I don't think that I can reason with you.

I should elaborate--it's fine if town can find a sequence of roles that helps them win the game. That's normal and baked into setups by default.
However, when that sequence of roles is so powerful that it tilts the game into town's favor due to mechanical efficiency of that combo usurping any possible rhetorical doubt that could be sowed, that's bad design.
If you think it's somehow great design for a setup to have a public cop and loud doctor without scum having huge safegaurds to counter that power, kindly see yourself out of ever designing games.

In post 4795, Porkens wrote:Hey everyone, lynch Varsoon.

Hey Porkens.
Eat rope.