Anyway, MaximumSpin, assuming you survive the lynch, how would you feel about me targeting you with an ability that does nothing? Mostly for Shakerag's benefit, he's softclaiming some kind of mass ability gifting ability, and needs to know about someone targeting someone else, apparently.
Ain't a problem for me, my ability doesn't recoil or anything. Actually, I might as well straight up inform you that I have a save-target ability. Yeah, you know, the kind of thing you usually want to avoid losing on the first turn!
I think No Lynch is definitely wrong. The reason is because the lynch at least has a chance of hitting a mafia member, and if it misses at least it hits someone suspicious we could end up lynching later anyway. On the other hand if we No Lynch the mafia gets to make more kills, and those always hit town and generally hit better/townier looking players.
this is insane, the chance of hitting a mafia member in the first turn is by definition less than the chance of hitting someone harmless, and "hit[ting] someone suspicious we could end up lynching later anyway" is so obviously a
bad thing that I am seriously reconsidering the possibility that you three are Mafia. But I'm still holding to No Lynch unless a strong consensus emerges in agreement, because No Lynch is better than you idiots lynching me, and hopefully people will be willing to bandwagon onto that when there are already two votes.
Now I do believe that suggesting this is an honest mistake on the part of Maximum Spin and kingawsume rather than a deliberate attempt to gain an outcome favourable for the mafia. However, I find it suspicious that you refused to commit to your idea until someone else expressed their support for it. A desire to not stand out can be a mafia tell. Please explain to me why you were unwilling to cast the first no lynch vote but happy to cast the second.
I did, in fact, commit to my idea from the start. My first sentence in my voting post expressed the idea. However, people are usually too eager to lynch and it can be hard to regain a No Lynch consensus in a game when the first few voters go off half-cocked like this.
This is decidedly false; over-eagerness to lynch is a very good sign of mafia alignment. Until the first mafia action you have nothing, no matter how much you believe otherwise; no point wasting two players when you could lose only one.
Elaborate on your viewpoint, please. Surely there are patterns of behavior committed during the day that are suspicious and merit voting? And if we're not going to at least try to find somebody, what's the point of Day 1? Whether or not we hit right, we're going to have much more to talk about day 2 due to day 1 scum hunting.
No, no there are not, there are only snap judgements, prejudices, and — well, actually, I stop myself, no, there's one thing you can do on Day 1 that's suspicious and merits voting:
be too eager to lynch on Day 1. The point of Day 1 is to collect data, but you definitively cannot have adequate data from just Day 1 - unless the mafia are dumb enough to give it to you by being too eager to lynch on Day 1.
But like... somebody, I forget who, said a bit earlier, why not just plain vote for No Lynch rather than wait?
And finally... if you prefer to no lynch day 1, why did you vote Tiruin?
I don't know, it seems to have worked pretty well as a strategy, I've managed to make a few people engage in extremely suspicious behaviour.
ETA: I suppose it's clear enough that I'm pointedly ignoring Tiruin, but I did want to add that no, I've actually never played Town of Salem, but I have played IRC Mafia with people who are... ah... somewhat better at this.
Author
Topic: Procedurally Generated Mafia- GAME OVER MAFIA WIN (Read 75417 times)