Mini 90 - Game Ended

[mathcam]

Yo. For now, pedanticer is funny. More soon.

Cam

[mathcam]

Okay, done reading, or at least skimming. The first thing I noticed was some interesting underlining by Talitha, but it's not every post, so it's probably just conincidence. But I'm still watching.

I'll try not to irk you like my predecessor did, Talitha.

Cam

[mathcam]

No matter, the game will now thrive. Woo!

On that note, it looks like the town's doing pretty well, here. 2 out of 3 dead being mafia ain't easy. There's some suspicioun of an SK, what with the bombing. Or just a vig with a lucky guess? And if the bomber is an SK, I would think there's no more mafia....3 mafia and an SK is a lot for a mini, unless there's numerous strong pro-town roles as well (which there may be, seeing as how two mafia are already dead).

So I suppose the hunt for the bomber is our primary task? Anyone wanna claim responsibility?

Cam

[mathcam]

Recently, bloojay's been coming down on the "less active" side of things, so I don't think his posting in this game is far off from the norm.

I'll take the silence on my question to be an implicit "No, I'm not responsible for the bombing" from Carmine, Talitha, just_nigel, and Morpheus?

[mathcam]

Well, we're trying tof giure out who's left. There's already 2 mafia dead...it sure would help if we knew if the bomber was pro-town or not. I strongly suspect that he/she is not. Why would I

expect

the claimer to claim responsibility? I'm not sure that I expect that the bomer will come out, but people hearing the question and neither saying yes, no, or "I'm not sure if they should come out" seems to imply "no" to me.

If the bomber is pro-town (again, doubtful, in my mind) and is some kind of a vig role, I don't think we've lost too much. Sure, the mafia know where to go if they want to get rid of a vig, but a) so does the doc, and b) Any time the mafia's going after the vig, we have one more night with a cop or a doc being unharassed.

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't like the arsonist scenario for two reasons. 1) It's a very weird role. Why make the SK's role any more limited in power? If there's a mafia group of 2 people that can kill every night, a lone arsonist is

very

unlikely to win. 2) Yeah, it was a bomb, not a fire. No doubt the roles could be modified in name to make the bomb explanation feasible, but still, between these two reasons, In find it highly unlikely CoolBot included this role in the game.

Oh, I didn't realize I was voting for Talitha.

Unvote: Talitha

, though I haven't decided who to revote yet.

Cam

[mathcam]

This seems reasonable, does it not? I guess the big question is whether or not we have

any

mafia left.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm not sure about pusing for a claim. There's 9 of us here, and it's likely that only one of us is evil (but possibly 2). So we'll call it a 7.5 in 9 chance that we're bandwagonning a townie role into the open if we force a claim. If it were certain that we would catch a mafia as soon as he claimed, then it would probably be fairly close as to what the optimal strategy should be, but given that so many of the claims are not immediately refutable, I tend to think that not forcing claims is the way to go.

I think I'd rather take the approach of bandwagonning with the intent to lynch and backing down from the lynch only if there's near-certain proof of someone's role, rather than saying "Oh, I think the claim is believable, let's all back down now."

When I have played this in real life, we have always known what roles were in the game. I can see how it complicates it to not know.

Aside: Yes, and this has to be one of my favorite parts of online mafia. Designing a game is a lot of work, so if you want to play ten games in a row of a new variant, you have to spend quite a lot of time preparing. Here, just about every game has not only the intrigue within the game, but the intrigue relating to how the game itself has been designed.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, I'm more saying that the non-you's of us should deicde whether or not they want to force you to claim given that I don't feel that they should back down if you come out with anything less than a provable claim. Beyond this, I personally don't find you in particular that suspicious yet.

I think you should hold off at least until someone argues this point with me.

Cam

[mathcam]

Reading through, I agree with the just_nigel bandwagon the most. His quote above

Mathcam, who do you wnat to railroad - are you still suspicious of Talitha?

was the icing on the cake.

Vote: just_nigel

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry if it was unclear. Yes, Talitha explained it well. It sure sounded like you were eager to jump on a bandwagon, but didn't want to start one yourself. Confidence issues aside, I still feel this way. My vote stays.

Cam

[mathcam]

Maybe tomorrow, just_nigel. That's by no means a verifiable role, so according to my aforementioned policy-of-the-day, my vote stays.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, CoolBot's not going to say anything, most likely.

Those quotes make me slightly less suspicious of just_nigel, but at the same time, the line "As a bodyguard, I protect whoever" seems incredibly phony to me. I understand the possible motivation...to make it clearer to the mod who you are so he knows what to do with your night choice, but still. I'll leave my vote for now.

They are more of a grudge in another game, where I have just learned how good of a player Mathcam can be ... I am sure that Mathcam will weasel himself out of this one and make me change my mind

I'll do my best, Nanook.

Cam

[mathcam]

Wow. Go us!

Cam

[mathcam]

Wow, I can't believe Talitha didn't have some kind of posting restriction.

Cam