nom: Spinwizard (challenger)
nom: Vandamien
Huh?VanDamien wrote:I'm pretty suspicious of the whole nominate plan, and this is why. If we're nominating the challenger, especially this early, we're effectively giving either scum team a pass to challenge. If we're nominating the challengee, there's no reason for scum to jump on the challenge for safety, but they happily can with the majority already having stated who they prefer to be voted out through the nomination process.
dylan41985 wrote:i also agree
Yes, various people have said this in various ways and I agree.The scum don't want to either offer or receive challenges -- as both give scum a chance of dying that staying out of the limelight Van Damien's post is nonsensical.
The same coould be said for the townies, especially with two scum groups that could be cross-challenging. I find it nonsensical and WIFOMy to say that scum will act a certain way. What, make everyone belive they'll keep their heads down so that if you go on the atack and do bing the spotlight in your direction that it must mean your town? That's a line of thinking I don't think I'll be following.mneme wrote:The scum don't want to either offer or receive challenges -- as both give scum a chance of dying that staying out of the limelight Van Damien's post is nonsensical. I don't know that it's scummy, but I'm happy enough with my vote anyway.
If no one has volunteered to be the Challenger, then the person with the least recent post at deadline will be named the Challenger.
I assume the logic here is to penalise vote-hopping? I don't see this as being that useful. I'd still rather just let the nominee challenge whoever they like. I think we learn more from who they nominate out of choice than by directing them.Mr Stoofer wrote:(e)Unless(c)applies, the Challenger will challenge the person who hasmade the fewestsubstantivecontributionsthe most nominations (apart from the Challenger).
The difference is that a townie may be willing to risk his life if it means getting rid of someone he thinks to be a scumbag, wheras scum would much rather just sit back and let townies challange other townies if possible. Again, like I said, there's lots of WIFOM involved, a scum might be very active and agressive just to look pro-town, but that's all right; it's much easier to figure out the alignment of someone who's being very active and agressive then to figure out the alignment of a semi-lurker. If we ignore lurkers, that could very easily cost us the game, just like it cost the town the game in MAD.VanDamien wrote:The same coould be said for the townies, especially with two scum groups that could be cross-challenging.mneme wrote:The scum don't want to either offer or receive challenges -- as both give scum a chance of dying that staying out of the limelight Van Damien's post is nonsensical. I don't know that it's scummy, but I'm happy enough with my vote anyway.
So, you're suggesting the nomination system helps the scum manipulate the town? In a sense, that's probably true, but by that very process of seeing who votes for who and who wants to put pressure on who, we get information about everyone in the game. The way mafia works is that scum try to manipulate the town and town try to catch them doing it. If you don't have people expressing opinions about who should challange who, then I don't really see how the town has a chance to figure out who's scum.DeanWinchester wrote: Even the biggest group has a 50/50 ratio. So Town/scum terms don't really apply.
This nomiantion system does not help the group of six. It gives the groups of three an advantage because they can help control the group of six without making challenges themselves.
Well, yes. If the town figures out who the scum is, they win.If the group of six can figure out who is in the group, it's game over. We can use our superior numbers and the, over looked, rule that you can only challenge once untill everyone has gone atleast once.
Probably. The idea is that we want the two most scummy looking people to challange each other, in the hopes that at least one (and perhaps both) of them are scum, perhaps scum in different groups.Anouther issue with this nom theroy is that won't the person nominated to be the challenger most likely lose anyway?
Town wins normal games of mafia far more often then "lone cowboy" type games of mafia. So making this game more like a normal game of mafia probably improves the town's chances.This whole nom system is a way for the groups of three to take control of the game and make it like a normal game of mafia.
Well, right. DO you have a better idea about how to figure out who is town then through some kind of voting system?For the group of six to win we need to figure out who is (or most likely) in this group and abuse our numbers.
Huh? How does voting mean that "the six will nominate each other"?This nom theroy puts the group of six in a situation where we have to nom each other as opose to going after the smaller groups. The smaller groups can not afford to chalenge each other or they will lose to our numbers.
Um, that would only be true if we knew who all of the members of the town were. In any case, you're trying to make it sound like each vote will have 6 townies on one side vs. 6 scum on the other side; the point you're missing is that the groups of 3 want to lynch each other just as badly (or perhaps even more badly) then they want to lynch townies, as the informed groups are probably actually bigger threats to each other then anything else. So we're not at lynch or lose, because even if we lose a townie or two the scum will tend help us lynch the people in the opposite scum group.For the group of six this day is lylo for us, kinda. We need to get a challenge between us and any group of three and win the deadlock. If we can acomplish that we win because every vote will then be between us and one of the smaller groups or small group vs small group, which we are fine with because we will have the numbers to make the debate go our way every round
Neither of those statemets is at all true.@ The rest of the group of six: If we lose one of us today it going to be hard to win. If we can get one of the smaller groups today it will be incredibly hard to lose.
...Note: If the challenge ends up with one of the six and one of the three's we will almost know imediately who is among the six because neither of the small groups can afford to give us numbers. Thus they can't afford to vote for one of the six to win.
I like this idea. Obviously, you are in the group of six, because when you refer to this group you say "us" and when you refer to the groups of three you say "them." I will come out and say that I am also in the group of six. The other four guys should do the same, and the game is ours.DeanWinchester wrote: If the group of six can figure out who is in the group, it's game over. We can use our superior numbers and the, over looked, rule that you can only challenge once untill everyone has gone atleast once.
For the group of six to win we need to figure out who is (or most likely) in this group and abuse our numbers.
We can set this up so every vote is between us and one of the groups of three. With our numbers we can win every vote. All we have to do is survive one dead lock vote and of course never make the mistake of challeging one of our own.