Mini 149: Open Role Mafia - Game Over

[Xanthe]

Hi everyone.

Vote: Jaguar,

because butchers spend way too much time with sharp knives and bloody hunks of meat.

[Xanthe]

Some of the apparently pro-town power roles must surely be scum? I'm still trying to figure out how this would work.

[Xanthe]

I agree that anybody could be the scum in this game, though I'm not so sure the scum were determined randomly. The balance of power would be severely affected by the number of power-roles who are actually Mafia. However, a random selection from a group is a possibility - for example, one could have been chosen randomly from the doc/cop/backup doc/backup cop quartet. I think it's highly likely that this group does contain scum.

[Xanthe]

Since lazarus held a press conference I guess he's available for interview.

And I just want you to know that I will use my powers for pardoning very rarely and only in extremely-contested cases.

You've obviously given your role some thought, so please would you elaborate? In which circumstances, exactly, do you anticipate that you might use your powers to pardon? How would you justify over-ruling the wishes of the town?

[Xanthe]

I'm inclined to agree with HM and mole. In a normal game, with the doc alive, we could reasonably expect the cop to survive the night. In this game, if HM is innocent - and at the moment I think he probably is - his lifespan is, as he says, unlikely to be long.

I also didn't understand the argument that knowing he is sane makes having him reveal a worse option than if we didn't.

Would the people against HM revealing feel differently if he survives until tomorrow and reports that he has two useful investigations?

[Xanthe]

I think the roles we know about will work as described regardless of whether or not the player is pro-town.

Unvote: Jaguar

[Xanthe]

Nobody answered my question:

Would the people against HM revealing feel differently if he survives until tomorrow and reports that he has two useful investigations?

What's more valuable? An out-in-the-open cop/doc or one that the mafia doesn't know about? I argue it's the latter and exposing an innocent will probably force him/her to expose their hidden role if they have one.

Why would an innocent, named by HM as his investigation target - and he's already said he got an innocent result - reveal their hidden power role, if they had one? Isn't a major point of the argument against him revealing that it exposes the named innocent? Why would they make their situation even worse by claiming their role?

On the whole though, more experienced players have come out against the cop revealing than for it - and they can't all be scum.

I've been looking for a new candidate, and I like MeMe's arguments, so:

Vote: mlaker

Any news of Dourgrim?

[Xanthe]

I thought we had mafia and a SK for sure, because of zedmango's death scene:

They find him in his home, gruesomely stabbed with multiple knife wounds, and with a bullet to the head to boot.

I took the knife wounds + bullet to mean that zedmango was targetted by both.

[Xanthe]

Unvote: mlaker/mathcam

[Xanthe]

mathcam said he'd give his opinions on which players looked scummy if at least one person unvoted him, and I have. mathcam, is one unvote enough? If not, please would someone else unvote him? I'd like to hear what he has to say.

[Xanthe]

I'm quite surprised, given mathcam's lengthy analysis of the Should HM Reveal question, that he's offered no thoughts on any individual players other than those arising from Jaguar's comments about mole, and I think he's made more of those - and of Jaguar's response - than they really deserve.

However, mathcam's now back on 5 votes - one short of a lynch - and 2 of those are Dourgrim (no longer playing) and lazarusmoth (just gone on honeymoon according to Newbie game thread). Neither has posted since mathcam replaced mlaker so have had no opportunity to reconsider, and it looks like mathcam is effectively stuck with these votes, with Speedy talking about an imminent deadline.

I hope at least that any deadline will be postponed until a replacement is found for Dourgrim. The doctor is a key player, and we got practically nothing from Dourgrim - two of his three posts were "Hello, all!" followed by a couple of lines of nothing whatsoever. In the third, he hopped on the mlaker bandwagon, giving as his reasons "nothing posts", "bandwagoning" (pots & kettles!) and asking for an unnecessary vote count. In fact the more I look at this the more suspicious I am of Dourgrim....

[Xanthe]

I don't think anybody's going to accuse a replacement player of flipflopping for removing his

predecessor's

vote and subsequently revoting. vikingfan's concern about his image strikes me as suspicious, and I was suspicious of Dourgrim anyway...

[Xanthe]

Time to back up my suspicions with a vote:

Vote: vikingfan

[Xanthe]

As for people saying that they see the logic in a vikingfan lynch, I would like to know what exactly they find scummy so that I can refute it if I can. It's always annoying to hear people say (especially about you): "so-and-so seems scummy" without understanding what exactly they don't like. I know what Mathcam doesn't like, but I'm not sure about the others.

vikingfan, I gave reasons for my suspicion of Dourgrim in post 133, and for my suspicion of you in post 154. Your concern for your image:

I could-but then that could be construed as flip-flopping, which is not exactly the image I want to have in the game.

- when you had only just joined the game - just struck me as something more likely to be uppermost in the mind of someone with a guilty conscience, than of an innocent.

[Xanthe]

I do see what HM is saying though about the Jaguar lynch. Jaguar said she had no secret ability and has no real role according to the OM. Any thoughts as to whether this is a good line of action to take?

It's already been pointed out that the players who denied a secret role may have been doing so to mislead the Mafia into targetting the wrong people. And although Jaguar has been singled out, didn't Stewie say the same thing? Anyhow, even if it were known beyond doubt that she has no special role, I don't think "Either Jaguar is scum, or she's useless, so it's a safe lynch" is a sound argument. No townie is useless; they have their voice and their vote to contribute even if they have no special powers.

Also, another way is to have HM investigate me and have me protect him, though that risks throwing away an investigation if I die that night.

In this setup I think any plan that involves informing the Mafia of the night choices of both the doc and the cop is fatally flawed.

[Xanthe]

If we're going on lurkiness alone I think we should also be looking at Cubs. His two personas combined have said less than Malaprop.

[Xanthe]

No - my earlier post was pointing out that the stabbing and shooting are definitely separate groups...and that mathcam wasn't one of them. Less-experienced players may strike as a vigilante night 1, but mathcam wouldn't.

mathcam wasn't playing Night 1; he replaced mlaker during Day 1. But I agree with the conclusion anyway: two killing groups, 1 stabbing and 1 shooting.

BTW, Stewie, we don't know the game mechanics. It's very possible that we have a godfather or two in this game as well to partially nullify the two sane cops(assuming we have two sane cops).

No. The mod said:

Both the sheriff and the deputy are guaranteed to be sane and there are no roles that are immune to their investigations.

MeMe has indicated that mole's role description is similar to her hidden role description. So I think it very unlikely that there could be roles immune to investigation by her either.

Hang on. It's common knowledge that the longer a day goes(at least on mafiascum) the better for the town. While I don't want to make MeMe reveal more than she has to, I don't want to have a quick day.

I do, however, want to hold off on lynching Stewie until we hear from HM. If he pulled up a guilty result too AND both cops are on the side of the town and sane, then we have two lynches the next two days of likely scum.

Then

why are you voting

? You voted for Stewie immediately after the post containing the second quote, saying you had actually intended to vote for him in the same post. If you're genuinely so concerned about Stewie being lynched before we hear from HM, and genuinely don't want a quick day, why did you feel it necessary to put a third vote on him at this point?

I was suspicious of vikingfan yesterday and am even more so now. And a FOS to lazarusmoth and Cubs for their votes as well. Cubs was a major lurker yesterday and leaps in with a quick vote today; lazarus, despite saying:

Obviously we need some discussion on the validity of MeMe's claim and of her sanity

takes the one action that could move the day towards a quick lynch without that discussion happening, i.e. a vote on Stewie.

We definitely need to hear from HairyMezican.

[Xanthe]

xanthe wrote:

Quote:
Both the sheriff and the deputy are guaranteed to be sane and there are no roles that are immune to their investigations.

MeMe has indicated that mole's role description is similar to her hidden role description. So I think it very unlikely that there could be roles immune to investigation by her either.

I'm confused, xanthe. You're saying I'm suspicious because I voted for stewie yet at the same breath, support meme's claim?

This was not meant as supporting

or

not supporting MeMe's claim; I was just pointing out that if she's speaking the truth it's unlikely that there are guilty roles who would show up innocent if she investigated them. To be crystal clear, I suppose I should have said: "So, if she's telling the truth, I think it very unlikely that there could be roles immune to investigation by her either. " It was not a comment on the validity of MeMe's claim, but rather a response to vikingfan's suggestion that there might be godfathers to nullify two sane cops. (Nor is it a comment on the likelihood of there

being

two sane cops.)

My suspicion of you was - and I think this was pretty clear the first time I said it - on the basis that you claimed to believe it was necessary to discuss "the validity of MeMe's claim and of her sanity", in which case I can't see why you thought it necessary to vote for Stewie immediately. If your vote had been accompanied by an assertion that you believed MeMe's claim, and some justification for your belief - that would have been different. But your post implied

doubt

. And yet you voted anyway. If you were sincere about wanting the issue discussed, the last thing you should have wanted is a rushed lynch on Stewie.

[Xanthe]

Hhm. No stabbing death last night. I was hoping that the SK could rid us of one more scum, but that didn't happen.

So Cubs and Lazarus Moth are scummy? We need to reduce the mafia by one or else the town is pretty much doomed. Since we don't know if both are mafia or one is mafia and the other the SK, any ideas as to which one to lynch?

They can't both be Mafia, surely? That would make 4 Mafia plus an SK.

[Xanthe]

I think the most probable scenario for last night is:

vikingfan protected HM
SK attempted to kill HM, but failed because of the protection
Mafia killed vikingfan

If HM is good, that means Cubs is almost certainly the SK (HM had already named Lazarus as guilty).

Even if HM is lying, I think the scenario above is still the most likely, meaning HM would be the remaining Mafia. If this were the case, his play yesterday requires us to believe he would have cleared MeMe and joined in the lynch on his own scum buddy, rather than press the case for his own candidate (lazarus). lazarus is claiming he did just that (well, what else can he claim?) but I don't find his argument convincing.

Also, if HM is scum we have to explain the fact that he has named

two

other players as guilty, when (at least) one of them must be innocent. Why would he do this? If we lynch someone he's named as innocent, his cover is blown. If he wanted the town to lynch the other scum (saving himself from the possibility of a night kill and confirming his own credentials as a good guy) why would he give us two names, with the chance that we'd choose the wrong one? He could have avoided clearing a living player by saying he investigated vikingfan last night. (Unless he'd falsely accused lazarus yesterday. But HM seems indifferent as to which we lynch.)

I think the simplest explanation is also the most likely: HM is telling the truth, and lazarus and Cubs are scum. Cubs has lurked throughout this game. Cubs, if you're innocent you really need to step up and defend yourself, fast.

[Xanthe]

I've thought about this some more overnight.

There seems to be a very basic objection to HM being scum, which nobody has answered - the fact that if he is, he has given us at least one false guilty result. And he is known to be sane. If we lynch a player named by HM as guilty, and they turn out to be innocent, he seems highly unlikely to win the game. The only winning position for him (I think) is if he survives until tomorrow with precisely one townie. This would require HM to take out the SK tonight, and the SK to obligingly take out a townie. If any more people than that were alive he would be lynched, as a known liar.

My best guess is that he might have a chance to win it if we lynch a bad person because then there will be 4 people left and two killers.

You mean, if we lynch an innocent? If we lynch a bad person there'd be only 1 scum left.

If HM is innocent, lazarus and Cubs are definitely guilty. Even if HM is guilty, one of them is likely to be guilty anyway. If they aren't, we have to believe that HM has knowingly given us two false guilty results (and that Jaguar is scum). And I just don't see that. If HM is guilty, and knows who the other scum is, he would just give us that name. We lynch the player, they turn out to be guilty, HM kills any townie of his choice at night, and next day gives a false guilty result or a genuine innocent result on one of the surviving townies.

So I'm very likely to vote for Cubs, but willing to listen if he has any response to these points.

[Xanthe]

I think this is the situation described in the Not Prisoner's Dilemma thread in Mafia Discussion: 1 SK, 1 Mafia and 2 townies. From the opinions in that thread it isn't at all clear that the bad guys would or should take each other out at night.

[Xanthe]

Well, seems as if nobody has anything more to add, so I won't hold things up any longer:

Vote: Cubsfan4ever