Mafia 47: Kingmaker - Game over!

[elvis_knits]

vote glork

because his avatar is cool

[elvis_knits]

R is a lot better than E...I'll switch with you....

[elvis_knits]

This should probably be decided early for at least one good reason I can think of. If the King/Queen is Mafia, and of the two players being considered one of them is also Mafia, the King/Queen will (probably) choose to execute the non-Mafia member, and will be justified in doing so since that person will have also reached a lynching majority. We should probably preempt such a strategy before the chance arises.

I think it's good to put a King/Queen in these types of situations because then we get more information. If a King has to choose between two players, we can see possible loyalties toward some players and not others. If we give the King no room to manuever we miss the chance to see them making scummy moves and using craplogic to lynch townies.

[elvis_knits]

FYI...I think games are set up to have 1/3 scum. So the 33% thing is a REALLY BAD idea.

I think we should move forward from these "how the king should act" scenarios. If we think the king is acting scummy, we should say it as the situation arises. I think everyone should know what is good manners and what is not about how the king should act. If someone becomes king and lynches a player without majority support from the town, it's pretty obvious to me that we'll all know that's scummy.

Bottom line: King shouldn't do anything without discussion and support from the town or risk the town's wrath the next day. (AKA: Don't do anything stupid).

Seems simple to me.

[elvis_knits]

vote:RandomActs

I don't like the premature claim.

See post 152. Who can tell if it's premature?

Well seeing as we've been talking about how wrong it would be for the king to lynch someone without atleast majority town support, and you didn't have a majority of people voting for you...yes, it was premature.

It's often good to let a bandwagon build so that we can see who jumped on and who didn't.

And I will jump on.

unvote glork; vote random acts

Claiming this early really makes you look like paranoid scum. A townie shouldn't be that scared of being lynched.

[elvis_knits]

Try to act normally...if you can...

Seriously though...I think we should act as if our votes really counted.

[elvis_knits]

Just checking in... (I just got a new puppy!!! so I've been busy this weekend)
I'm still most suspicious of RA. Claiming early was enough to get my vote, but later saying it might be a gambit puts him over the top for me. I don't think townies need to panic, and I don't think they need to lie. I could see an early claim if Fritzler was king and you were afraid he'd put the HAMMAH on you at any moment, but I think TSS is a benevolent ruler and won't lynch without good thought and reason.

[elvis_knits]

Regarding having TSS reprise his role as king:

I think he's a good person to have as king again because he's logical, etc. But I also think it's good to spread the responsibility around so that we get a chance to see more people put on the spot. There is greater likelihood for mafia to screw up and give themselves away when they are king... just because they have to post more and everyone is paying attention to them above all others (greater scrutiny). So, while I would not be opposed to TSS being king again, I think it's good to remember that the king role can help us out mafia.

[elvis_knits]

If I was a scum king i'd nail a buddy quick as I could.

:obvious:

[elvis_knits]

I agree Broomhead's direction of the vig is very scummy. We can't expect every king to be right. We have to pay attention to how they come to their conclusions, not simply if they lynch right or wrong.

vote broomhead

[elvis_knits]

I'm really starting to <3 Glork.

[elvis_knits]

I feel that Yosarian has been heavy on discussing strategy and light on actually contributing to who we should lynch (which is what we need to be discussing most).

This falls under the category of "trying to act like a townie."

vote Yosarian

[elvis_knits]

I'm just saying it's incredibly easy for scum to discuss obvious strategic points and pass themselves off as town that way. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss strategy, but we should also concentrate on who to lynch. I'll go back and read your posts again though and see if you really were making a lot of discussion of who to lynch. (It was my impression that you were mostly concentrating on the strategy side of things).

[elvis_knits]

Elvis: I have made 14 posts so far this game discussing who we should lynch. You have made 4, by my count, and that includes the one where you voted for me. And mine were, in general, longer and gave better reasons then your posts.

In fact, now that you've brought my attention to your day 1 posts, the post where you voted for random acts looks a bit suspicious.

Yosarian - Maybe I was a little unfair to you in saying that you didn't make much of a contribution to who we should lynch yesterday. That was my impression of you, and the fact that you made 12.5 posts discussing strategy is probably where my impression comes from. Also, most of your let's-lynch-somebody posts were about RA, so just reiterating the same thing over and over again isn't that impressive, IMO.

Oddly enough, we both only voted two people yesterday: RA and Broomhead.

I agree that my posts should have been better and longer yesterday, but first of all I was busy with a new puppy and second of all I didn't feel that the strategy discussion was all that productive. We were basically outlining what we would consider scummy in the king -- things that I thought should be obvious. And I still think it's easy for scum to hide behind empty strategy talk. Though I'm not totally sure you fall into that category anymore.

Anyway...point taken about being more active in this game. I'll get on it...

[elvis_knits]

Elvis: I have made 14 posts so far this game discussing who we should lynch. You have made 4, by my count, and that includes the one where you voted for me. And mine were, in general, longer and gave better reasons then your posts.

In fact, now that you've brought my attention to your day 1 posts, the post where you voted for random acts looks a bit suspicious.

Yosarian - Maybe I was a little unfair to you in saying that you didn't make much of a contribution to who we should lynch yesterday. That was my impression of you, and the fact that you made 12.5 posts discussing strategy is probably where my impression comes from. Also, most of your let's-lynch-somebody posts were about RA, so just reiterating the same thing over and over again isn't that impressive, IMO.

Oddly enough, we both only voted two people yesterday: RA and Broomhead.

I agree that my posts should have been better and longer yesterday, but first of all I was busy with a new puppy and second of all I didn't feel that the strategy discussion was all that productive. We were basically outlining what we would consider scummy in the king -- things that I thought should be obvious. And I still think it's easy for scum to hide behind empty strategy talk. Though I'm not totally sure you fall into that category anymore.

Anyway...point taken about being more active in this game. I'll get on it...

I was "reiterating the same thing over and over again"??? I was the one who put together all of the primary arguments against both RA and broomhead. I more or less STARTED both major bandwagons yesterday. Your whole attack on me is based on a completly untrue claim, as I'm sure is obveous to you and to everyone else who bothered to read what I posted yesterday.

So why haven't you unvoted me yet? Your whole response here just strikes the wrong note to me; you're "not sure", you're still misrepresenting my posts from yesterday, and while you give the impression that you're giving in, you're keeping your vote on me. The last few posts you have made just feel like a scum trying an attack, seeing it fail, and then kind of slithering away from it while trying to give the impression you're not changing your mind. You're not even really trying to defend your vote for me, but you're not removing it either; you've given up trying to claim your attack on me has any merit, but you also haven't admitted your attack was in error. The whole thing just smells wrong to me...

fos:elvis

It's just one vote on you, Yos. I was still thinking about it.

unvote Yosarian

[elvis_knits]

Going back through the game I noticed another funny post from Twomz:

Er... should we impose a selfdeadline or just let TSS kill someone? I don't see us getting much more out of this day right now.

I don't like him pushing TSS to make a decision.

vote twomz

[elvis_knits]

I voted Broomhead yesterday and the post below is enough to make me vote him again.

Alexander was pro-town indeed, but he didn't have any extra info to know who was scum and who was not, so saying that we should necessarily follow his leads is a fallacy.

vote broomhead

well we can try and see who Alexander was either making mad, or getting on the trail of, and this was his 2nd to last post or well, his 3rd to last if you count the bah! post.

If we're already talking about "creating the impression of contribution where in fact none exists", I would advise you to take a look at Mystery Meat of Doom's posts. Every single post he made is either:
- joking
- agreeing w/someone
- restating something that was already stated
- stating something entirely obvious
- except for post 281, which is just plain weird

I dunno, maybe it's just his posting style, but I don't like.

and his last, or second to last...whatever was just Alex telling Von that his had a misunderstanding in posting and that he wanted a paper trail from TSS.

i say we work from where he left off.

vote: MMoD

[elvis_knits]

No, Elvis Knits is the court Bitch, Dranko is the court jester, and i'm pretending to be a jester, because Dranko's not very good at his job.

(no offense intended EK)

no, elvis is my personnel bitch

nooch

No offense taken.

P.S. Fritzler likes it when I tie him up.

[elvis_knits]

This is the post where N_lich votes RA:

vote:RandomActs

I don't like the premature claim.

While I buy Thok's reasoning that townies wouldn't normally pile on a bandwagon after a claim, I think it is important to note WHY N_lich voted for RA. I remember that RA's claim was VERY early and most people were unhappy with such an early claim. N_lich may have been one of the only ones to vote RA for it, but it seems like a pretty good reason to me.

[elvis_knits]

(I'd also like to point out that I referred to the mafia as "assassins" before N_Lich even did. Nobody seemed to have caught it, but the fact that I'm a mason should show that it's not necessarily a scumtell in any way, shape, or form.)

I did miss it, but I stand by my argument that it's a scumtell. "Not necessarily" is just in the nature of tells. Not everyone who does something is definitely scum, but having done so can still make a person more likely to be scum.

I don't like this reasoning at all. Feels like stretching it to make it fit rather than using Glork's point subjectively. In other games, I have seen nothing but sound reasoning from Fuldu and this stands out for me.

Vote: Fuldu

Fuldu's just saying that "tell" doesn't mean it's 100% accurate.

I don't understand why you'd vote him for this.

[elvis_knits]

Also if you think about it, two hero's could unbalance the game.

[elvis_knits]

The Hero is a powerful role, IMO. I guess I don't have any real reason to think there is not more than one hero, but I'd be surprised if there was. The strength of the Hero is that if a scum-king tries to lynch him, the scum-king will die. But the Hero could just as easily end up causing a townie-king to die. Too many of these running around could unbalance a game, I think. There's also the problem that a hero can't become kingmaker.

[elvis_knits]

I'd suggest not killing the person who's claimed will kill you if you kill him. Also, try looking for people who tried to push his bandwagon... but not too much, just enough to keep it going, or get it started.

N_Lich might be a good place to start (he's lurking), also Fritz to some extent. Others were EK, PJ, TSS, Thok, and Yos. (after the last vote count were Chamber and VitaminR)

If Broomhead was

trying

to act scummy, what's wrong with the people who found him scummy? I mean, even he admits he was acting scummy.

[elvis_knits]

One possible solution to the Hero problem in general is to make a person who the town percieves as suspiscous (someone from the previous day's list of execution) King and "order" them ("vive la revolution") to make the lynch of the Hero- as this is something of win-win scenario. This does have few potential problems of it's own- the potential King has to be clearly seen as disposable and also there's a possibility of crossing night actions. The largest is probably that it if it forces a strong claim from the King it hasn't got us anywhere.

I don't think this is a good plan either. You can "order" the king to do whatever you want, but if the king thinks they are gonna die anyway, they are probably going to do whatever they want. Especially if they are scum. There's nothing to lose for them at that point.

Also...

unvote broomhead

as nobody has counterclaimed him.

[elvis_knits]

My first suspect is

Twomz

and I am voting for him.

I do not put too much stock in the Vaughn complaints because this is how he always plays. Last game I played with him he put someone one from lynch for basically no reason. And he was town. Not that he can't be scum. I just know that he often plays this way.

My second suspect is

Ameliaslay

, although the reason isn't bulletproof. I just know that she is normally impatient and draws attention to herself, and I haven't seen her doing that very much this game. At best, a weak tell, but that's my second best suspect.

I am also somewhat suspicious of VitaminR for when he voted Fuldu off of his "assassin" reasoning. It seemed like a difference of opinion and not something that warranted a vote. Vitamin did unvote though.

So, I'll vote the other two people I'm suspicious of, but I don't feel that strongly about them. But for the sake of keeping it straight...

vote ameliaslay; vote vitaminr

[elvis_knits]

TSS - I thought you played king well yesterday until you said you killed someone you suspected was a townie

Still... I don't think scum would admit to this. I guess that argument is WIFOM, but I don't see scum playing that way.

[elvis_knits]

Yay LML has to do a reread! (I don't want to do a reread).

[elvis_knits]

I was going to say much the same thing as Alexander, but he beat me to it. Allowing the King complete free reign can work just as much for the town as against the town.

How can you differentiate between a pro-town King who goes against the will of the town to kill another pro-town player between an anti-town King who goes against the will of the town to kill another player? What if the player who the town voted for turned out to be scum (but was not killed)?

To me, it sounds like you are making preemptive excuses for the King to say: "Hey, I thought he was scum, so sue me if you wanted somebody else lynched". I think there should at least be some sort of limitations for the King.

Proposals I might suggest are (if we allow the King to go beyond the realm of executing players the town has not reached a majority on):

Suggestion One

-The King may only execute players if the town has at least given that player 33% of the votes (we can keep a running list for "executable players" or something)

Suggestion Two

-The King

must

execute a player if the town gives them 66% of the votes (or an otherwise overwhelming majority, we may change the percentage at the town's discretion)

Suggestion Three

-The King

may

execute a player if there is direct (investigative, most likely) evidence against that person,

even if

that person has not reached 33% of the votes

I do not believe that setting limits upon the King is at detrimental: you must consider that it is very possible (and indeed very likely) we will have at least one scum King throughout the course of this game: and we obviously want the scum as restricted as possible.

Worth noting, however, is that we all get as many votes as we like, so reaching a 50% majority does not necessarily mean there is nobody else at a 50% (or higher) majority. Therefore, we shouldn't halt discussion simply because somebody reaches a 50% (or higher) majority, as you may still vote for other players you find equally disagreeable.

RandomActs does make a good argument, but I suppose I simply do not agree with his train of thought: I think there should be at least some limits on Kinghood. This certainly isn't worthy of a vote on RandomActs, since I can understand his position.

I haven't seen a reason to take my vote off of Mystery Meat yet, but I think I will add a

Vote: Twomz

.

If i were to say reverse alphabetically, it'd look like i'm trying to get certain people lynched wouldn't it?

Besides, it's what that guy from survivor did... it worked for him didn't it?

Implying that lynching alphabetically is not "setting up lynches" but lynching backwards alphabetically

is

"setting up lynches" seems contradictory. And this isn’t Survivor, so that isn’t helping your case. For the record, that guy (who I believe was on the first season) lost, so no, it really didn’t work for him.

PPE:

And, the current king has aproximately 25% chance of being mafia, just like any player.

Whoa, where did you get that percentage? I know I have seen at least one 20-player game with only 3 Mafia members, so I’m interested to know whether or not you have seen a like set-up for this game or whether that is pure speculation.

Holy crap. You're lucky I wasn't around for this.

Taking away the King's powers basically removes the king element here. The King allows a certain player to see through the lies and teh deception IN ORDER to lynch scum in a case where the scum may even have the upper hand.

This will and cannot work. It will just lead to many deaths and not enough decisive action.

FoS: PJ

Good posting. Giving the king enough rope to hang himself is also a good possible result when we don't severely limit the king's power. I think we've entered a reasonable working condition for the king though... so I guess it's a mute point besides the fact that PJ wanted to handcuff the king.

[elvis_knits]

Here's my two.

Vaughn- I thought the vote for n_lich was strange, as PJ said, n_lich wasn't doing anything to merit a vote in that particular game

Chamber- Pot calling kettle black, I know, but he's only made 7 posts 3 of which were on the same day... mostly one liners...

Rereading Amelia's posts I came across her top two suspicions: Vaughn and Chamber (LML, right?).

I don't have an opinion yet if Amelia was pushing for townie's to be lynched or distancing herself from a scum buddy. At the time of this post, she was on the execution list (I think) so maybe she figured it was time for distancing? I dunno. It's very WIFOM and doesn't prove anything. But I'll be looking at the two of them to see what I think... if any other connections can be drawn.

[elvis_knits]

ooooooooooooo.

Thanks for the cookie. Mmmmmmm.

[elvis_knits]

Does cryptic = scum?

[elvis_knits]

Looking back through the thread, I noticed something about Shamrock. When TSS originally made his statement about thinking RA might be town when he excecuted him, Shamrock piped up and said this:

Yeah, it was possible that RA was a townie, I definitely saw that distinct possibility there

Clarification: By this, I meant that it was possible that he was a townie, but I also saw considerable evidence for the idea that he was scum.

So here he agrees with TSS, saying he thought the same thing. This supports TSS. But today, when a lot of people seem to be turning on TSS, Shamrock has also turned on TSS. (Figuring it was too obvious to defend him now?)

Actually, TSS, I do think you're scummy for refusing to kill RA...

The only other major point against me, I think, is that I was reluctant to kill RandomActs... which supposedly shows that I was fishing for power roles... but killed him anyway... which supposedly is bad because I thought he could well be a townie but judged that there would be more advantage to killing him than to letting him live regardless. I think that's bunk, both because I wasn't rolefishing and because I can't win whatever I do. If I don't kill I'm protecting him (against three quarters of the town!), if I do without compunction I'm bloodthirsty, if I do with compunction I somehow get the worst of both.

... but that's not why I think it at all. A couple posts:

I find RandomActs's defense of his claim a good deal scummier than the initial claim was. The "good cause" he felt he had was my asking him about a statement that appeared to be prepping a claim made while under no pressure whatsoever, so his plea that he only claimed for feeling forced to feels disingenuous at best.

Post #283 is an incredibly long post that I'm not going to bother quoting, but it's several pages long and it's all devoted to showing how scummy RA is. He made this post when 13 of 19 players were already voting for RandomActs. That's 68% of the players in the game, or 76% if you exclude TSS and RA. Yet he still apparently felt the need to justify, again, why he thought RA was scummy.

It's not until this post by RA...

What? I'm still alive? Hmmm. Imagine that. I just checked in to see how day 2 might be going. Here we are still in day 1.

Geez, TSS, you almost have me thinking I'm scum. After all the thought you put into that last post, I almost wish I could change my role to accomodate you.

By the way, please don't prolong the day on my account. As far as I'm concerned my lynching is fete accomplished. No one is going to change their mind. Pull the lever already, why don't you?

... in which RA blatantly decides to stop defending himself and is pointing out that it's scummy for him to stall on the execution, that TSS finally pulls the trigger.

This smells to me of a scum trying overly hard to avoid looking scummy and therefore being hesitant to drop the hammer even though over 3/4 of the non-TSS/RA town agreed that RA should be executed.

Vote: the silent speaker. I don't like this.

This is pretty different that his posts from yesterday, saying how he could understand TSS's behavior on D1. Reeks to me of scum flip-flopping or scum cutting a partner loose.

vote Shamrock

and

vote TSS

by association.

[elvis_knits]

Elvis: Read my post again. I wasn't voting for TSS because he thought RA might be a townie, I was voting for him for stalling on executing RA, apparently over-seeking acceptance of his decision.

I still feel that you were supporting TSS yesterday, and cutting him loose today. You didn't mention anything about TSS's stalling yesterday, just your support of his decision to lynch.

[elvis_knits]

I don't know why everyone even cares who the kingmaker is. Unless you want him to claim so that we get another innocent, or you want to lynch the kingmaker and have him try to make a scummy player the kingmaker the following day to sort of test who is scum. Personally, I don't think this is a very good plan because we would be knowingly killing an innocent. Yeah, I guess maybe it catches scum... but it just seems wasteful to me.

[elvis_knits]

So if Thok isn't the kingmaker, what was the point of this whole discussion? I guess Thok thinks he know who the kingmaker is, but i still fail to see how that is helpful to us (unless somebody who is about to be run up can claim kingmaker).

I think Thok has sidetracked us. (Not that I have been much help either as I've had a hard time getting back into this game). But I'm just suspicious of this whole Is-Thok-Kingmaker? tangent.

[elvis_knits]

For the most part I find Thok to be perceptive about roles and claims so I wouldn't be surprised if he could guess who the kingmaker is. I still don't see how that helps us catch scum, but I am not convinced this makes Thok scum.

I think I should get around to voting some people today...

*off to reread*

[elvis_knits]

well helllo king LML.

is it safe to assume that there is no vig? i mean maybe the vig didn't want to listen to glork, but i thought if there was one, there certanly would have been a kill. soo in light of that:

vote: Thok

cause i think you should have been dead last night, so today i guess is the day to do it.

If there's no vig, there's no reason for Thok to be dead.

[elvis_knits]

OW. That sharp stick was poked right into my a**.

Of the people on the list I agree with sparing Thok. His breadcrumbing and hints about who the kingmaker is were not particularly helpful in finding scum, but it seems like he was

trying

to be helpful.

I also don't think Fuldu is a good idea. He has had limited access and I think that's the biggest point against him. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll go back and read his posts to see if I smell scum.

The rest of the people on the list are fine with me (except myself, but I don't think you care about that).

So let me know what specifically you want me to respond to. If it's just that fact that I haven't been active enough, I understand and apologize for that. The slow pace of this game has made my interest wane. I'll do a reread now, because I know I should.

[elvis_knits]

Pj was lynched yesterday, Fuldu.

[elvis_knits]

This little nugget stuck out to me:

I find it curious that the person who aked for mon (Shamrock's predecessor) to be replaced was Ameliaslay.

I was suspicious of Shamrock yesterday, but hadn't realized this little bit of info. Not that it proves anything, but it raises my eyebrows and reminds me to

vote Shamrock

. Though, I must say I was suspicious of TSS and Shamrock working together, and that obviously is not a valid hypothesis. I still think I am suspicious enough of him though.

Also, Vaughn is lurking too much for my liking (yes, I realize the hypocrisy). But, he didn't even post yesterday. Lurker hunt!

vote Vaughn

I'm realizing now that I am basically only looking at LML's list of 5 to see who I want to vote for, and I'm not sure that I should be limiting myself to that. I'll have to think about other people too...