Bay 12 Games Forum

How are you going to do that then?

They'd be pretty yooj.

Survey: +1w

Production: Colony Center: +1w (free activation of unskilled)
Farm: +1 food
Rare harvester: -1 food, +1 rare raw

Trade: -4 rare raw = 4*4 = +16w (24 total)
+2 machinery +2 basic goods = (2*7) + (2*5) = -24w

Organize: Nothing

Net: -6w, -3 rare raw, +2 basic goods, +2 machinery

Quote from: hector13 on January 27, 2017, 08:53:17 pm

Quote from: TheDarkStar on January 27, 2017, 07:03:41 pm

As far as I can tell, it's safe to put two votes on someone but not any more in case they are scum.

hector13, what do you think of this conclusion and how did I arrive at it?

Reasonable conclusion, and I assume you arrived there by halving the number of votes it takes to hammer. Or hammer-2.

Arguably not so much a reasonable conclusion, seeing as though there are two scum. That's enough for a self-vote and a quick hammer by their partner (further assuming they're not already on the wagon)

Seeing as I want to get lynched, though, let's put me at:

hector13, Lynch-1

Here's my thought process:
If there are two votes on someone, there are two options. If they are town, it's good to get them closer to getting lynched (but scum will do everything they can to avoid hammering anyway). If they are scum, then the most scum can do is do a quick self-vote followed by a hammer from the other scum (or vice versa). But that would immediately flag the second scum as scum because it's really suspicious to put someone at L-1 with so little info. So the second scum has to either wait a bit to vote or convince someone from the town to hammer.

This follows my thoughts too. More on this later.

so hector, two questions:
Why did you self-vote? I mean yes, we all want to get lynched, but why did you think self-voting would make someone else vote for you?

I didn't think self-voting would make someone else vote for me. What made you think I did?

I thought you were going for a reaction test, so I reacted. I don't like RVS, so I decided to raise your reaction test and put myself at L-1. Like you say, scum!hector's scumbuddy is revealed if they quickhammer, and town!hector knows the rest of the Townies aren't going to pull the trigger a few hours into D1.

So, you and fillipk provide optimal town-ish reactions by backing off from that.

The biggest issue I have with the reactions, though, is they're frickin' identical:

lol no unvote hector13

Hahahaha No. unvote

What should the rest of us think of that?

And a second question: How many votes can safely be on someone with no further info tomorrow?

If you want me to be pedantic, zero.

If you want me to be optimum, probably no more than L-2. There are two scum, therefore they need to convince two Town to vote with them to guarantee they get the lynch they want today.

However, at present, it's RVS, we have no information to be optimal with, and while pedantry is fun, it isn't particularly useful in Mafia. If we have no further information tomorrow, we're still in RVS, and you need to take risks to get information, so L-1 for a short time will probably be fine. Scum can't risk quick hammers at this point.

As far as I can tell, it's safe to put two votes on someone but not any more in case they are scum.

hector13, what do you think of this conclusion and how did I arrive at it?

Reasonable conclusion, and I assume you arrived there by halving the number of votes it takes to hammer. Or hammer-2.

Arguably not so much a reasonable conclusion, seeing as though there are two scum. That's enough for a self-vote and a quick hammer by their partner (further assuming they're not already on the wagon)

Seeing as I want to get lynched, though, let's put me at:

hector13, Lynch-1

fillipk

If you were to choose, would you like everyone to think you're buddying up to Imic or distancing yourself from him?

TBF

You seem to be trying to play an optimum game. What are your plans heading forward?

Quote from: Loud Whispers on January 27, 2017, 10:49:39 am

Quote from: Reelya on January 27, 2017, 04:33:35 am

What do poor people do with the money however?  If you e.g. give 30,000 people $10K to live on, they have to spend it. Say 2/3rds of that goes to creating minimum-wage jobs and you set those at $20K. That just made 10,000 jobs to feed/cloth/house the other 30000. But those 10,000 people are going to spend their money, and 2/3ds of that is also going to spent on wages, so you get another 6666 jobs happening, and those people spending create another 4444 jobs and so on. If you do the limit sum for that you get a total number of jobs created of .... 30000. Those are just rough numbers but they happened to work out that way. My point is that by setting the right minimum wage and welfare payments, you can in fact create more actual jobs than the number of "slackers" you create. Part of the reason this works is that labor is an under-utilized resource. People have plenty of time to spare, but we have finite limits of other resources. We can run out of steel, but it'd take a hell of a lot of effort for us to run out of people who have spare time.

How would you ensure people wouldn't use all this cash to fuel addictions?

Give it to them in a non-cash form. Like how food stamps work. So, a sort of credit card that has funds put onto it every month, with very limited cash withdrawal options. You can use it to buy anything that takes a credit card.

Last I checked, drug dealers haven't invested in credit card readers.

Cigarettes, alcohol, painkillers, gambling...

In saying that, I'm for universal income. If someone wastes it, that's their prerogative. So long as it's going toward some type of legitimate economic activity it's generating growth and/or taxes.

Quote from: itisnotlogical on January 26, 2017, 09:11:51 pm

I'd personally have an "audiolog tax" where you have to pay a flat fee for every time you replace effortful storytelling with a collectible audiolog. Additional fees may apply for audiolog cliches such as hiding a password in an audiolog, a series of audiologs where the speaker becomes a zombie/other monster, an audiolog where one of the mooks talks about their wife and kids, etc.

I specifically mean audiologs as in a collectible in the world that plays an audio clip, or represents some other kind of journal entry. FNAF's phone calls aren't audiologs in this case, since A) they play regardless of player action and B) they're not technically necessary if you know how to play the game.

Why is an audiolog bad? I think they're pretty nifty. Fallout does them pretty well. But I mean. I guess they'd be completely useless with that definition

I dunno man, Fallout is an open-world RPG, and the audiologs are, for the most part, entirely optional world building stuff, so they kinda work in Fallout, but less so in a game like Dead Space, which needs a good atmosphere. Listening to an audiolog takes you out of it.