Mafia 13 - Game over!

[mole]

I'm going to keep my vote where it was (or rather, move it to

Vote: Leonidas

). I would much prefer an appearance by AdmiralThrawn himself, but I don't see much else to start with.

[mole]

"More" accurate list, yes... but still not accurate. I made a post on the last page. ;)

[mole]

Okay, I'll switch. This is going nowhere.

Unvote: Leonidas, Vote: mlaker

[mole]

Unvote: mlaker

I don't think that's ever occurred before... if I had written the role a doctor would turn up and save

all

people in the house from death.

[mole]

Hide with me. I want the doc protection. :P

Seriously, I don't think targetting Stewie each night actually achieves anything. Each night you survive, you've found a guranteed innocent - if I had your role I'd be checking as many people as I can. No point in preserving your life if you're not going to do anything with it...

[mole]

Hey mlaker, I think the only chance of bothof us surviving while you hide wit someone named is if you hide with me! I'll doc protect you, Hopefully another doc will protect me, and we might just survive till tomorrow. What do you think?

What will that do for us? We can use mlaker's power kinda like a cop role - each night he survives, we know he didn't stay the night with a mafia member. Going around and hiding in the houses of confirmed innocents doesn't help us at all. And protecting him as well? That might guarantee he survives, but also makes the role completely useless! We won't be able to use him as a cop, because he bases his results on whether he survives the night, and he's guaranteed to do so whether he visits a mafia or not.

No point in preserving his life if it doesn't gain us anything...

[mole]

On the "scum is down" thread on the GL:

Mafia 13 deadline is postponed to thursday (if scum is up then of course).
Or it must be revived within the next 30 minutes...

Of course, we should wait for an official statement in this thread now that the game is back up.

[mole]

Vote: Leonidas

If mlaker is telling the truth, then your plan makes his powers completely useless to us, and risks us losing two cop-like roles on the same night. You are trying to silence a cop, and I will not accept that.

There are valid reasons to be suspicious of an unprovable role claim, but the response to those is to wait until he screws up. Send him to the houses of suspicious people - if he doesn't die, and the person he allegedly visited turns out to be mafia, then we have ourselves a scum. Simple, and it doesn't involve him giving up valuable abilities, or put any cops at risk just to prove a point.

I have trouble believing that the plan proposed above came from someone concerned about the town.

[mole]

Your plan

requires

the cop's death in order for us to determine mlaker's alignment.

[mole]

a) If mlaker isn't mafia, they can just kill

both

of them after the docs are dead.
b) "Protecting an additional innocent" means nothing if you consider that mlaker's abilites, if he is innocent, will be rendered useless by this plan.
c) This plan does nothing to prove mlaker is innocent or not, unless the mafia kill our cop.

You continue to defend a ridiculous plan that improves the mafia's position more than it does ours. I mean, it doesn't even prove if he's mafia or not, all it does is ensures his survival, and makes him completely useless to us if he is innocent.

scum scum scum.

[mole]

a) It does not give the mafia the opportunity to kill two cop-like roles in one night.
b) mlaker is still free to use his abilities at night, under the watch of the town.
c) Because of b) we will be able to catch mlaker in a lie and

prove

that he is mafia, rather than having him survive until the end of the game and still be an unknown.

And I'm not voting for you because you're pondering the problems linked with an unprovable role. I am voting for you, and I stated this quite clearly in the post above, because you continue to defend a ridiculous plan that improves the mafia's position more than it does ours.

[mole]

Bah. You are defending the mafia's doomsday scenario...
The one that denies the docs their ability to choose a target and stick to it if they see fit.

The docs can protect who they like. They are taking a risk that someone else will be attacked, and the mafia are taking a risk that if they target an important role they will be stopped.

If mlaker's telling the truth, as you seem to be assuming now (why? my plan offered among other things an easy way to catch mlaker if he is guilty), then you are denying a

cop

the ability to investigate at all, and giving the mafia the opportunity to kill two cops in one night. Guaranteed.

How is that any better?

[mole]

And you're evading my questions.

[mole]

Here they are, then:

1. How does your plan allow us to determine mlaker's guilt? Isn't that the whole point of the idea?

2. You are defending a scenario that takes a way a claimed cop's ability to investigate at all. How is that any better?

[mole]

3. Since we're counting lies, where did my plan imply that the docs needed to protect the player mlaker targets?

That's two for you (including the one you

edited out

, you scum!).

[mole]

mathcam

, top of this page:

You continue to defend a ridiculous plan that improves the mafia's position more than it does ours. I mean, it doesn't even prove if he's mafia or not, all it does is ensures his survival, and makes him completely useless to us if he is innocent.

Last edited by Leonidas on 22 Sep 2003 10:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

And I'm not voting for you because you're pondering the problems linked with an unprovable role. I am voting for you, and I stated this quite clearly in the post above, because you continue to defend a ridiculous plan that improves the mafia's position more than it does ours.

"because [I'm] pondering the problems linked with an unprovable role" was taken

directly

from Leo's post and provided as my reason for voting for him. I don't quite get why he chose to edit it out given that I would have just left it alone, but I went back to play the stupid "that's a lie!" game, and it was gone.

[mole]

"...directly from Leo's post

where it was

provided as...", rather.

I'll go post this in Site Ideas, but isn't it possible for the last post of the thread to be edited without the "Last edited" thing coming up? Not that I was going to use it or anything, I don't have mod powers or anything at the moment, but if so it needs to be turned off.

[mole]

My Proposal

mlaker does whatever he does. We send him out to check on whoever we find suspicious at the time. If he dies, and our unlucky homeowner doesn't, we've caught ourselves a scum. If he survives, he might have slipped up. We can keep track of who he claims to have visited, and if one of them turns out to be mafia, we know mlaker is also scum.

I will leave it up to the doctors to decide who is worth protecting.

Best Case: If mlaker is telling the truth, hands us lots of innocents, and dies heroically to point us to a mafia as well.
or If he's lying, and we force him to visit a mafia buddy, whom we then lynch and prove he's scum as well.

The worst case is Leonidas's scenario above, which only holds if mlaker is telling the truth (hence "you seem to be assuming [mlaker is telling the truth] now"). If he is lying, then the mafia will have to break from the pattern to avoid killing one of their own, which will be suspicious, so they probably won't follow the pattern in the first place.

[mole]

You have the order wrong.

1) mlaker checks someone, and survives
2) We find out later that that player was mafia
3) We say "mlaker, you lied to us!" and lynch him

I think I was clear about that, too.

I still do not see the logic in, if mlaker is telling the truth, trading his investigative powers for a real cop's, when it is not impossible to have both. I also don't see the point in, if he's lying, giving him a free pass until the end of the game, when we can send him out and try to catch him in a lie.

[mole]

Perhaps it would be safer if instead of using the role name, they used a certain letter of their role

e-mail

? That way, we can easily continue the plan once one of our hiders has died and their role name revealed, since nobody will know what the code is (only what that particular letter was).

Of course this does require a) at least one hider to survive so he can decode the results and b) identical role emails sent to all hiders.

[mole]

Why make it so obvious, though? If the mafia knows the pattern the hiders are using, they can try to time their kills so they kill the hiders. I don't know how well they'd do at this (they could just shoot at the people one above them in the list and guarantee themselves a hit eventually, but they risk giving themselves away).

The "code number" thing makes this much harder for them. And to answer your question - the mafia can't claim to be hiders without knowing the code number, so it's unlikely there'll be any lying hiders to worry about.

If one of the hiders dies, or reveals themselves, we can have mlaker or Fletcher verify the code number, get all the information we can about who he targetted, and continue with a new code number.

[mole]

I think all the information we could have salvaged from the Jalyn bandwagon died with DP, actually. Not that that was a bad thing, he was evil, but look at the other candidates (in order):

mathcam

: Probably innocent

shadyforce

: Had claimed a role at that point

Quailman

: ???

mlaker

: Had claimed a role at that point

Cadmium

: ???

DP

: Serial killer

I have no opinion on Quailman or Cadmium at the moment, but neither of them stand out as much as DP, the player who cast the deciding vote, adding a comment on how a no lynch is "stupid tactics" while somehow lynching someone completely at random is sane.

(Quailman said nothing, Cadmium made it five each, and hoped it would result in a no lynch.)

[mole]

Cadmium: You're right about DP.

As for the rest - all I had to go on was "This means noone will be lynched". I took it at face value - sorry if I didn't see any clever traps for the mafia in that post. ;)

And Quailman's turned up as well, he's brought with him a valid defense.

I'm done here - I'll say they're both innocent. All three if you want to include mathcam.

[mole]

I have to agree that Quailman's evidence trumps Fletcher's. Hell, even Fletcher seems to accept that. :)

It's entirely possible that he's the mafia spy - we've had a couple of powerful town roles (the hiders-as-cops, the real cop). Perhaps a mafia spy wouldn't kill a hider if they came to visit.

Vote: CoolBot

[mole]

I'm going to

vote: mikehart

just because I feel like making the point that CoolBot was a real mafia member and we can't say Fletcher's survival means anything until we get more information.

I also don't think the final voting records mean that much - I've already dismissed the Jalyn bandwagon, and the others just seem dull. Darkblade wasn't posting, Kerplunk was done in thanks to mlaker sacrificing himself, and CoolBot was (probably, we weren't sure at the time) fingered by a cop. I for one am still willing to back mathcam up.

[mole]

Fletcher should have died when he targetted a mafia (like how mlaker died when he visited Kerplunk). But when he visited mafia scum CoolBot two nights ago, he survived - in fact CoolBot used this fact to defend himself.

So something weird's going on there - maybe Fletcher was blocked or something. I'm slightly more suspicious of Fletcher now, but not enough for a vote - he roleclaimed to confirm mlaker's role, and yesterday he claimed he visited CoolBot

after

it was pointed out that our cop was voting for him earlier, and those just seem unnecessary if he's lying. Especially since he voted for CoolBot anyway, which practically dooms him if he's scum as well...