woad&fangs - 3 (Visorslash, Double A, BSmith)
edse - 2 (Jarema, The King)
Visorslash - 1 (Montmorency)
Jarema - 1 (edse)
Montmorency - 1 (woad&fangs)
dcmort93 - 1 (atheotes)
wideyedwanderer - 1 (thefluffyone93)
Double A - 1 (SalmonSoil)
Abstaining - Xehh II, Csargo, Choxorn, dcmort93
Not Present - 5 (robbiecon [2ND], Greyblades [2ND], wideyedwanderer [2nd], Major Robert Dump, classical_hero)
1) Voting for Woad
2) Voting for Edse
3) Nominating someone else (voting someone alone)
4) Abstaining
5) Not present
The mafiosi are hiding in one of these places, because that is the entirety of the player roster.
What is the likelihood that they are voting for Woad?
Risk factor: Being one of three voters for a townie, and lead candidate, increases suspicion to oneself, particularly on such narrow margins of winning the lynch.
Gain factor: One dead townie.
Case: All too easy, Woad defended a scumbag.
The case means it's going to be easy enough for the lynch to succeed, but the lack of large wagon means the blame factor for the lynch is going to be divided more generously in your direction. As such, the risk/gain factor is a bit high. Could there be one here? Maybe, but several? Doubtful. At least two voting for Woad are townie. Double A remains the highest risk factor for being scum IMO of these three.
I wouldn't pressure any of these three candidates right now.
Voting for Edse?
Risk factor: Not appreciably different from voting for a one-vote candidate. Backlash here is unlikely to be different either.
Gain factor: Ensuring that a fellow mafioso does not die from a single vote placed on them, followed by one lucky vote.
Case: Case?
Voting for Edse makes sense as a defensive maneuver, with the second voter being slightly more likely to be scummy than the first, as it joins an existing candidate to outvote all the one-shot candidates, forcing two additional votes to destroy a voted scumbag instead of just one. However, this assumes that the scumbags have any reason to act defensively. With only a single vote on the candidates other than woad, it's less likely that they'd make such a move with that purpose in mind.
If a person who voted for Edse survives to the endgame, they could use another look. Until then, they can be safely placed on the backburner. So I wouldn't pressure the Edse voters right now.
Voting for someone nobody else voted for?
Risk: Likely raises suspicion on you from the person you voted for. Otherwise, not much. Being accusatory but not causing a death allows you to blend in. There are also several people doing the same thing, voting but not in deadly fashion.
Gain: Look like you're scum-hunting and being active and participatory, thus avoiding any anti-lurker campaigns, without real risk.
Case: Don't really need to make one.
Six people fit this category and they do so without really distinguishing themselves radically from one another. Of note- Wideyedwanderer failed to vote once again, meaning he's approaching WOG status. As such, he's likely to be wogged, which means Fluffy's vote is more or less wasted. Not that unexpected. Edse voted for Jarema, Jarema voted for Edse. Monty voted for Visorslash, Visorslash voted for Woad, Woad voted for Monty and was innocent. Atheotes voted for dcmort, and dcmort abstained, making him a passive target. SalmonSoil voted for Double A, and Double A voted for Woad.
Specific risk factor: No risk involved for those voting for Wideyedwanderer or dcmort.
Folks voting for people who are in turn voting for other active players are creating voting footprints that can be analyzed by the endgame. Creates more of a risk but not one that is particularly prohibitive for most players.
These people are doing behaviors which create limited information but is also low risk in the long term. Pressure here is still a good idea because odds are very good one of these is scum.
Abstaining:
Xehh II, Csargo, Choxorn, dcmort93
Not unusual for Csargo or Xehh or dcmort. But they also know that they can get away with it. This indicates activity and thus interest in the game without forming a voting pattern which can be analyzed, there are also several others doing so which further reduces the risk of being accused for that reason.
As such, you are gaining the least amount of information from this group, they are behaving in a manner which is least productive for the town, and they are benefiting from the least risky action a scumbag can currently take.
I would direct your lynching efforts here. The usual abstainers may well be townie, but they may also be mafia, and you won't be able to tell which. these are also folks who will abstain as mafia because they know they can get away with it. Remove the cover for scums to hide in.
Not Present:
Meaning closer to being wogged. Wogging is a free lynch, and will apply to scumbags or townies alike if it keeps up. As such, you do not need to pressure the folks who have failed to vote twice.
The folks who failed to be present once are like abstainers, except this one does not have the balls to actually be on record as abstaining, hoping people will not notice that they're not participating, whereas an abstainer is acknowledging that they aren't pressuring anyone. As such, an eye is warranted on Major Robert Dump and Classical_Hero.
If I were to take a wild guess as to where the scumbags are hiding, it's likely spread between your
abstainers and your
one-vote accusers. Why? Because it becomes much harder to narrow it down further than that, and creates two generic categories for them to hide in which are both low-risk.
For informational purposes, you should punish the abstainers/non voters first, so that you're left with active and aggressive townies for the endgame which can mop up the one-vote accusers. You will have a better voting record to analyze that way.
Re: Pirate Ninja Robot Zombie Mafia IN SPACE [IN PLAY]
Originally Posted by Double A
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks