Mafia IX: Triumph of the Mafia [Concluded]

[Joooray]

How well do you think we would do if we did indeed lynch a random person every day? In order for the mafia to win, they would have had to have not been selected by random.org every single phase of the game. I don't know about you.... but I think the odds are in our favor. I like them. I like those odds. I especially like those odds in a situation which defies analysis... a situation where, we don't have much to analyze yet. A situation where we could be persuaded and cajoled and threatened into destroying ourselves like lemmings off a cliff. How dangerous is an unpredictable town? How dangerous is one that can be reasoned with, persuaded, threatened, and avoided? The random lynch cannot be avoided, unless luck is on your side. And no one has control over that.

I think you are forgetting the possibility that the one operating the random machine could be mafia and might tweak it his favour.

---

Also:
I'll be gone for the rest of the weekend. I know this kind of messages are frowned upon lately, but there is nothing I can do since I have to work until monday in a place where the internet has not yet been established.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think you are forgetting the possibility that the one operating the random machine could be mafia and might tweak it his favour.

I think you underestimate the power of pepperoni! Those who suggest who should be killed must die! You see that way no sane mafia would ever suggest a random lynch! Bwahahahaha!!!

I love this strategy.

[Joooray]

I think you underestimate the power of pepperoni! Those who suggest who should be killed must die! You see that way no sane mafia would ever suggest a random lynch! Bwahahahaha!!!

I love this strategy.

Yeah, I understand, but in a game like this, were there is no post lynch reveal, how do you judge the success of a lynch. With your logic the one suggesting the lynches would have to get the two mafia within no time. Otherwise he'd be dead meat. But I see, all it needs is pure and heroic commitment to the town cause, so you may be right after all.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yeah, I understand, but in a game like this, were there is no post lynch reveal, how do you judge the success of a lynch. With your logic the one suggesting the lynches would have to get the two mafia within no time. Otherwise he'd be dead meat. But I see, all it needs is pure and heroic commitment to the town cause, so you may be right after all.

How do you judge the success of a lynch? When the game is over with a town victory. That's pretty much all we have.

Pure and heroic commitment to the town cause is what I'm all about, my friend. Who's afraid of the big bad lynch? Not me!

[Chaotix]

Ok, then, smart guy.

If you're so committed to these random lynches, then why are you still voting for me on suspicion instead of following the lead of the glorious leader?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ok, then, smart guy.

If you're so committed to these random lynches, then why are you still voting for me on suspicion instead of following the lead of the glorious leader?

Because you're opposed to random lynches, and I think that's scummy.

What are you hiding?

[Beefy187]

Well theres two ways of winning classical mafia games.
Monarchy and Democracy.

Good thing about Monarchy is that if our leader is pure and righteous. We have a very good chance of hitting the scum.
Ideally it should be someone dead who has the skill to hunt mafias.
Negative, mafia can simply stay on leaders good books. While the town can do nothing but blindly follow the leaders leadership.

Or we can do a democracy. We all talk up, battle our ideas. And get completely confused. That way we avoid having a incompetent leader.

In both ways we ought to talk up.

Currently we are taking the orthodox approach.

Now when I started typing this, this post had a purpose. Now I forgot what it was.. So just skip through..

[Secura]

I've decided that I am convinced by Pizza's defense of 'khann; I'm not necessarily going to agree with his bandwagon suggestions and vote accordingly, but I do admire the fact that he's stood up and taken charge of things. At this early a stage in the game, there isn't much to go on, and I was suspicious of him for what I am assured is typical behaviour.

unvote: Yaseikhaan

I've been mulling the thread over, taking into consideration those killed and the votes that have been cast, and a few things stand out as suspicious to me. The one unshakable thing is Methos' unvoting of Renata in the previous day phase... why?

DE's argument does make sense, both both for and against him. For now, I'll lean Unvote/Vote: Renata.

Initially he claims to support Diamondeye's arguments, although he doesn't clarify why, and he votes for Renata accordingly.

I realize this is going to look suspicious, but I'm heading out for work soon, so will more then likely miss the update.

Unvote: Renata

Now consider this post; he states that he is aware his actions are going to look suspicious, but he unvotes regardless. He does not place his vote elsewhere, either, despite stating that he feels Diamond could have been mafia too. What is the reasoning behind unvoting as such?

I miss most game updates/write-ups in the Gameroom because the hosts tend to be American and they're posting at least five hours behind Greenwich Meantime. Most of these updates tend to come in the evening, which I inevitably miss because I'm usually asleep at 4am GMT, but you do not see me unvoting, particularly if it is "going to look suspicious".

In short, I don't see a need to unvote if he was sure that Renata was guilty, and if he was not, he had professed Diamond was suspicious, so surely a vote in that direction would have been plausible.

Currently I can only think of three reasons behind this behaviour:

- Methos and Renata are the mafia; in an attempt at distancing himself he joined the arguments against Renata, but knowing that he had to head out to work, he couldn't be certain that his vote wouldn't lead to his scum buddie's death, so he unvoted to be sure. He posted "I know this is gonna look suspicious" in order to dissipate some of the pressure that he might face, then leaves the thread until the next day; his scum buddy survives by a single vote.

- Methos is the mafia, Renata is not; he voted in an attempt to blend in with the crowd, but realised that someone like Renata is a bad enemy to have; she's more than capable of picking apart an argument/vote and he perhaps wanted a townie on-side. She is saved from trouble by that single vote.

- Methos is simply town drawing attention to himself and I'm blowing everything out of proportion.

I'll concede that it's a possibility, but that unvote has been bugging me for the last few days and I'd like answers.

vote: Methos

[Chaotix]

I've decided that I am convinced by Pizza's defense of 'khann; I'm not necessarily going to agree with his bandwagon suggestions and vote accordingly, but I do admire the fact that he's stood up and taken charge of things. At this early a stage in the game, there isn't much to go on, and I was suspicious of him for what I am assured is typical behaviour.

unvote: Yaseikhaan

I've been mulling the thread over, taking into consideration those killed and the votes that have been cast, and a few things stand out as suspicious to me. The one unshakable thing is Methos' unvoting of Renata in the previous day phase... why?



Initially he claims to support Diamondeye's arguments, although he doesn't clarify why, and he votes for Renata accordingly.



Now consider this post; he states that he is aware his actions are going to look suspicious, but he unvotes regardless. He does not place his vote elsewhere, either, despite stating that he feels Diamond could have been mafia too. What is the reasoning behind unvoting as such?

I miss most game updates/write-ups in the Gameroom because the hosts tend to be American and they're posting at least five hours behind Greenwich Meantime. Most of these updates tend to come in the evening, which I inevitably miss because I'm usually asleep at 4am GMT, but you do not see me unvoting, particularly if it is "going to look suspicious".

In short, I don't see a need to unvote if he was sure that Renata was guilty, and if he was not, he had professed Diamond was suspicious, so surely a vote in that direction would have been plausible.

Currently I can only think of three reasons behind this behaviour:

- Methos and Renata are the mafia; in an attempt at distancing himself he joined the arguments against Renata, but knowing that he had to head out to work, he couldn't be certain that his vote wouldn't lead to his scum buddie's death, so he unvoted to be sure. He posted "I know this is gonna look suspicious" in order to dissipate some of the pressure that he might face, then leaves the thread until the next day; his scum buddy survives by a single vote.

- Methos is the mafia, Renata is not; he voted in an attempt to blend in with the crowd, but realised that someone like Renata is a bad enemy to have; she's more than capable of picking apart an argument/vote and he perhaps wanted a townie on-side. She is saved from trouble by that single vote.

- Methos is simply town drawing attention to himself and I'm blowing everything out of proportion.

I'll concede that it's a possibility, but that unvote has been bugging me for the last few days and I'd like answers.

vote: Methos

That is... well, that's convincing. Better case than Renata at the moment, definitely. And even still, it supports the Renata case as well. I'm going for it.

Unvote: Renata
Vote: Methos

Edit to ATPG:

I am opposed to random lynches because they are rather unreliable, and I am far from the only one. Obviously there are only two scummy people in this game, yet khaan has more critics than supporters. Are we all somehow scummy?

Also, no matter what justification you give for voting me... it's still hypocritical because it's based on a justification or a suspicion, and not on randomness.