Mafiascum.net

In post 49, PranaDevil wrote:

In post 48, Drew-Sta wrote:You seem a little averse to votes, if I may say so. Isn't a bullshit lynch a clue to who is mafia? I'm never for townies dying, but I think we're all aware that they do and quite often - that usually gives clues, don't you think?

Are you somehow suggesting a quick lynch day one is somehow a good thing?

A lynch is good, a quick lynch where we don't really get any solid information, and could end up running down the wrong direction because "X quick-hammered on day 1, must be scum" would be a bad way to go, but it would also allow scum to do it and go "whoops" right after.

Yes, we can get information from a town lynch, that doesn't mean I want it to happen on page 2.

I'm suggesting you can learn things in all situations, even a quick lynch without solid information. Why? Because you need at least 7 people willing to vote and that identifies something.

George has a point that poking and prodding with votes gains you knowledge. Getting to 6 votes teaches you something too.

We can get much more information without a quick lynch though. So why be happy with one?

I never said I was happy with it. Simply that you can always learn something from it.

I think my issue is, Prana, that you threw down two votes, then criticised someone else for doing something not dissimilar to you.

Funny enough i get town and scum reads with a few pages.
I'm not married to the reads but it help sort people out and keep notes on those im not town reading.
I really dont see why tanners views should be pucked apart especially when he asmiited it wasnt a strong read.
People have strong reads early on all the time. Even on page 2.

In post 54, farside wrote:Funny enough i get town and scum reads with a few pages.
I'm not married to the reads but it help sort people out and keep notes on those im not town reading.
I really dont see why tanners views should be pucked apart especially when he asmiited it wasnt a strong read.
People have strong reads early on all the time. Even on page 2.

I have no problem with early reads. I have a problem with poor analysis.

In post 46, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 42, PranaDevil wrote:The L-2 is more a scum leaning thing in my mind than a faulty town read.

What's wrong with putting someone to L-2?

Hammering would be an obvious scum claim.

That's why scum would put someone at L-2, to avoid the sus of hammering town.

In post 56, Saladman27 wrote:

In post 46, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 42, PranaDevil wrote:The L-2 is more a scum leaning thing in my mind than a faulty town read.

What's wrong with putting someone to L-2?

Hammering would be an obvious scum claim.

That's why scum would put someone at L-2, to avoid the sus of hammering town.

Agree.

OK, so apparently I'm an Innocent Child. I had no choice in the matter on when it'd be revealed.

So basically unless someone can protect me tonight I'm a dead man.

In post 53, Drew-Sta wrote:I think my issue is, Prana, that you threw down two votes, then criticised someone else for doing something not dissimilar to you.

I threw down two RVS votes, then criticised Tanner for putting them at L-2.

And you subsequently have agreed that putting someone at L-2 is something scum would do rather than hammer... so you agree with me, while telling me I was wrong to criticise Tanner for it...

In post 48, Drew-Sta wrote:I think you're making conversation for the sake of making conversation and trying to look like you're taking notice of things that aren't really there.

That's a scum charge, but you don't vote it.

VOTE: Drew

I'd be interested in a thing I've never seen or done before.
Feel free to call me a dummy dumb-dumb if it suits you, but

Hear me out - we obviously want his input and reads throughout the day as much as possible, simply because he is the only conf.town in the game so far.
But we won't be able to lynch scum 100% of the time D1 anyway, even if we had three conf.townies.
So my point is, that

Does that make sense for anyone?

No wait, does that make any sense?
Do we actually ABSOLUTELY want Wake to be in the final lynch-wagon?
If we lynch scum, it would be better to achieve the lynch without his vote, right?
Because we'd likely have more resistance from scum, and we would KNOW one townie would've been off the wagon?

But how does it work if we mislynch today, is it then actually worse?

Also - is Drew-Sta anything remotely similar to Nancy Drew?

In post 61, UnaBombaH wrote:I'd be interested in a thing I've never seen or done before.
Feel free to call me a dummy dumb-dumb if it suits you, but

what if we all agree that Wake doesn't vote for anyone today?

Hear me out - we obviously want his input and reads throughout the day as much as possible, simply because he is the only conf.town in the game so far.
But we won't be able to lynch scum 100% of the time D1 anyway, even if we had three conf.townies.
So my point is, that

whoever we end up lynching D1, and whatever their flip might end up being, the wagon will only consist of unconfirmed players.

Does that make sense for anyone?

I like the theory. Namely that we can look back at the wagon to gain more information.

On the flip side, we know we've eliminated a town player from the running for how many town we need to lynch (as an aside... if I'm on the phone, my phone typos that to lunch, advance warning) scum, making it slightly harder to do so.

How much harder I'm not certain, and can't be arsed doing the maths for it, but if anyone else has theories on the suggestion I'm up for hearing them.

You mind explaining how that could be helpful? ^
I have a vague idea but want to hear what made you propose that.

pedit-got the answer

In post 62, UnaBombaH wrote:But how does it work if we mislynch today, is it then actually worse?

I think it's helpful in that scenario too because scum would have to sell that wagon more to get more votes if they're already on it or they themselves would have to vote that player.

I like Persi so far. VOTE: Drew

Una, could you elaborate on 26?

As for the voting idea, I like it in theory, but I don't think it works in practice. If Wake thinks someone's scummy, but can't vote themselves, he'll start calling for votes there right? And if it's a mislynch it will be relavitely easy to hide behind "Wake wanted to lynch there" the next day.

In post 61, UnaBombaH wrote:I'd be interested in a thing I've never seen or done before.
Feel free to call me a dummy dumb-dumb if it suits you, but

what if we all agree that Wake doesn't vote for anyone today?

Hear me out - we obviously want his input and reads throughout the day as much as possible, simply because he is the only conf.town in the game so far.
But we won't be able to lynch scum 100% of the time D1 anyway, even if we had three conf.townies.
So my point is, that

whoever we end up lynching D1, and whatever their flip might end up being, the wagon will only consist of unconfirmed players.

Does that make sense for anyone?

Assume 10:3. With 7 to lynch, it takes 7/10 (70%) of town to come together to lynch scum. If IC doesn't vote, then it takes 7/9 (78%). So, no, I don't think that's a good idea. This of course doesn't consider busing, but I think the principle applies even in a busing scenario.

In post 62, UnaBombaH wrote:If we lynch scum, it would be better to achieve the lynch without his vote, right?

Yes, but it's really tough to get 7 of 9 to agree.

In post 63, UnaBombaH wrote:Also - is Drew-Sta anything remotely similar to Nancy Drew?

We'll see - if it's a Nancy Drew alt she'll eventually go ballistic on me.

In post 64, PranaDevil wrote:On the flip side, we know we've eliminated a town player from the running for how many town we need to lynch (as an aside... if I'm on the phone, my phone typos that to lunch, advance warning) scum, making it slightly harder to do so.

How much harder I'm not certain, and can't be arsed doing the maths for it, but if anyone else has theories on the suggestion I'm up for hearing them.

Around 11% harder, and in this game that's significant.

In post 68, Persivul wrote:Assume 10:3. With 7 to lynch, it takes 7/10 (70%) of town to come together to lynch scum. If IC doesn't vote, then it takes 7/9 (78%).

How did you get 11%?

In post 55, Drew-Sta wrote:

In post 54, farside wrote:Funny enough i get town and scum reads with a few pages.
I'm not married to the reads but it help sort people out and keep notes on those im not town reading.
I really dont see why tanners views should be pucked apart especially when he asmiited it wasnt a strong read.
People have strong reads early on all the time. Even on page 2.

I have no problem with early reads. I have a problem with poor analysis.

You asked him for his read.

In post 44, Drew-Sta wrote:

In post 41, Tanner wrote:

In post 40, PranaDevil wrote:Everyone is town or scum regardless of anything else.

Exactly. So I don't see the point in waiting for

"let's get everyone posting and solidly out of RVS stage"

before I say what I think.

I think George is being relaxed in his posting and interested in solving - questioning vote changes.

I find that to be Town indicative. Is it, as a whole, weak? Yes. Is it strong enough to get it out in the open and get the ball rolling? Also yes.

Do you scumread me for putting Persi on L-2? What about me having a "townread" early on?

Why do you think he's relaxed? Why do you think he's interested?

And there is only 2 pages, what were you expecting?

In post 60, Persivul wrote:

In post 48, Drew-Sta wrote:I think you're making conversation for the sake of making conversation and trying to look like you're taking notice of things that aren't really there.

That's a scum charge, but you don't vote it.

VOTE: Drew

I like your vote, but your reasoning sounds really odd.

VOTE: drew

In post 56, Saladman27 wrote:

In post 46, GeorgeBailey wrote:

In post 42, PranaDevil wrote:The L-2 is more a scum leaning thing in my mind than a faulty town read.

What's wrong with putting someone to L-2?

Hammering would be an obvious scum claim.

That's why scum would put someone at L-2, to avoid the sus of hammering town.

this ^ guy is also added to my scum reads.