Golden Pantheon - Japanese - Endgame

[safariguy5]

with about 25% of the inactive being a mafia.

How did you work this out?

4 towns to 1 mafia ratio, and will be 3 mafia so about 27.3% they will be.

Surely you knew this

You forgot that last game had an SKer too, so there were 3 mafia + 1 anti town role. So no, I don't believe we can assume there are 3 mafia and 8 town.

[freezie]

I was dreading receiving some votes for my in-activeness, anyhow I originally wanted to be on the reserve list because d1 is horrific and was gonna let someone else have a go and just replace if needed. I didn't post after my vote because i have yet had something to say and last 2 days out of town, but here now so shouldn't be any problems now. (sorry didn't let you know, didn't know myself, had to take my risk turns in a McDonald's but had no time to get into mafia)

Anyway there is still a whole load of random crap going around, which is why it has lead to lynch the inactive, i understand that but it's not gonna do a much great of deal with about 25% of the inactive being a mafia. I agree with this when we are completely stuck but just remember, being inactive doesn't give a better chance of that person being scum. So if they can be prodded to talk or replaced, they are always the recommended options to avoid hitting a nice power role without them even getting to claim in some cases. I agree with placing a few votes on an inactive though as usually if they keep drifting off and only post on every prod then, they need to be voted for to help them talk.

It's still good policy to vote out inactive players. They clog the game down, make lynches impossible, cause threads to stagnate, etc. In the absence of any other information, it's the best way to go.

Same goes for Freezie and Tail too.

I agree. I just don't think we should completly focus on them and lynch them for beeing inactive. I MUCH prefer a prod/replacement than lynching. Hence why I asked Edoc to prod drake. Made him come back and spur some conversation.

If drake had not said much since his prod, I would be more than inclined to vote him.

[strike wolf]

Well, I was hoping to bait a reaction from someone I consider scummy but he didn't respond and I don't think I have enough on him without the reaction to make a case on him.

Anyways, I have nothing against pressuring an inactive. it's not the best case but in the long run it seems to often prove necessary in the first couple of days. Drake's posted...I'll see if there are any other significant inactives.

[everywhere116]

Well, I was hoping to bait a reaction from someone I consider scummy but he didn't respond and I don't think I have enough on him without the reaction to make a case on him.

Would that be this post?

Well if we were to go by inactivity alone Drake_259 has been inactive longer.

Or a post that I didn't see or didn't go back far enough to find?

[TheGeneral2112]

Well, I was hoping to bait a reaction from someone I consider scummy but he didn't respond and I don't think I have enough on him without the reaction to make a case on him.

Would that be this post?

Well if we were to go by inactivity alone Drake_259 has been inactive longer.

Or a post that I didn't see or didn't go back far enough to find?

That is certainly odd... Why is drake signing up to replace in another game and yet inactive in this game? Meta...

[drake_259]

Well, I was hoping to bait a reaction from someone I consider scummy but he didn't respond and I don't think I have enough on him without the reaction to make a case on him.

Would that be this post?

Well if we were to go by inactivity alone Drake_259 has been inactive longer.

Or a post that I didn't see or didn't go back far enough to find?

That is certainly odd... Why is drake signing up to replace in another game and yet inactive in this game? Meta...

because i was out of town for a few days, i didn't have time to say i was gonna be away, i didn't even have time to get a sitter, (so if u look i missed a few turns before i managed to slip on for a little bit) and the posted the morning after i arrived as was to tired to write anything constructive. I had agreed to replace after i had got back.

with about 25% of the inactive being a mafia.

How did you work this out?

4 towns to 1 mafia ratio, and will be 3 mafia so about 27.3% they will be.

Surely you knew this

You forgot that last game had an SKer too, so there were 3 mafia + 1 anti town role. So no, I don't believe we can assume there are 3 mafia and 8 town.

still the same chance of them being mafia, and more reason just not to randomly lynch an inactive, with 4 anti roles and 7 town, we can't afford to lose townfolks

I did not take in account of a SK as we do not know whether they are in this game or not

[TheGeneral2112]

Well, I was hoping to bait a reaction from someone I consider scummy but he didn't respond and I don't think I have enough on him without the reaction to make a case on him.

Would that be this post?

Well if we were to go by inactivity alone Drake_259 has been inactive longer.

Or a post that I didn't see or didn't go back far enough to find?

That is certainly odd... Why is drake signing up to replace in another game and yet inactive in this game? Meta...

because i was out of town for a few days, i didn't have time to say i was gonna be away, i didn't even have time to get a sitter, (so if u look i missed a few turns before i managed to slip on for a little bit) and the posted the morning after i arrived as was to tired to write anything constructive. I had agreed to replace after i had got back.

That completely explains it. Failed meta on my part.

with about 25% of the inactive being a mafia.

How did you work this out?

4 towns to 1 mafia ratio, and will be 3 mafia so about 27.3% they will be.

Surely you knew this

You forgot that last game had an SKer too, so there were 3 mafia + 1 anti town role. So no, I don't believe we can assume there are 3 mafia and 8 town.

still the same chance of them being mafia, and more reason just not to randomly lynch an inactive, with 4 anti roles and 7 town, we can't afford to lose townfolks

I did not take in account of a SK as we do not know whether they are in this game or not

[/quote]

Serial killer, arsonist, cult, zombie, warewolf, prophet, warlock, etc. Many 3rd parties to choose from.

[jonty125]

and more reason just not to randomly lynch an inactive, with 4 anti roles and 7 town, we can't afford to lose townfolks

SK was a possibility and if the game was set like that we would be at MYLO (i.e. lynch townie 6 vs. 3 vs. 1 then SK and mafia kill would become 4 vs. 3 vs. 1. mafia and SK can force no lynch)

[drake_259]

and more reason just not to randomly lynch an inactive, with 4 anti roles and 7 town, we can't afford to lose townfolks

SK was a possibility and if the game was set like that we would be at MYLO (i.e. lynch townie 6 vs. 3 vs. 1 then SK and mafia kill would become 4 vs. 3 vs. 1. mafia and SK can force no lynch)

more reason lot to just lynch, can we afford to roll the dice and lynch the most inactive and hope the best?

If we're lucky they will just kill each other tonight

[TheGeneral2112]

and more reason just not to randomly lynch an inactive, with 4 anti roles and 7 town, we can't afford to lose townfolks

SK was a possibility and if the game was set like that we would be at MYLO (i.e. lynch townie 6 vs. 3 vs. 1 then SK and mafia kill would become 4 vs. 3 vs. 1. mafia and SK can force no lynch)

BUT serial killer wouldn't know the number of scum or if they could force a NL. Likewise, scum wouldn't know if the 3rd party role would be willing to NL with them. Bottom line, it would be pretty risky for either mafia or 3rd party to out and claim so they could joint.

[MeDeFe]

Mr Squirrel outed himself as 3rd party in the Egypt game, sided with the scum, and would've nearly gotten away with it, too. The plan only failed because the townie with the daykill was still in the game and there was no reasonable way to have foreseen that case. So, there's precedence.

[strike wolf]

and more reason just not to randomly lynch an inactive, with 4 anti roles and 7 town, we can't afford to lose townfolks

SK was a possibility and if the game was set like that we would be at MYLO (i.e. lynch townie 6 vs. 3 vs. 1 then SK and mafia kill would become 4 vs. 3 vs. 1. mafia and SK can force no lynch)

This depends on how the mod does. Often the Serial killer can not win with the mafia. If you're supposed to be the last man standing and there's three other men standing...that kind of goes against the win condition.

[everywhere116]

Mr Squirrel outed himself as 3rd party in the Egypt game, sided with the scum, and would've nearly gotten away with it, too. The plan only failed because the townie with the daykill was still in the game and there was no reasonable way to have foreseen that case. So, there's precedence.

SW is right, not with SKs. Mr. Squirrel wasn't a third-party killer (I assume he was some sort of survivor with Rodion, although after reading the thread I still don't know what his WC was). If he was, he would never have outed himself nor would he help the scum if they were about to win. A scum win is a SK loss.

Still, there being a third-party survivor type role is possible, and the threat of them turning over to the scum when they're about to win is there. I believe something similar happened with a survivor in Memebase.

[strike wolf]

Well I personally make it where if it's down to one mafia v. one SK than the Sk wins but yeah. My memory of SKs in games I've been in.

1. Masque of the Red Death: Sk was the only anti-town role.

2. Death Note Mafia: Serial killers could win with "mafia" due to an alternate win condition.

3. Golden Pantheon Greek: Unless I'm mistaken. Serial Killers could not win with mafia.

4. Firefly Mafia-SK had win condition that was not dependent on either side winning.

5. Actors Mafia-If it had come down to one mafia v. one SK the SK would have won. multiple mafia would have won over the SK

6. Futurama Mafia: Not sure but I believe Santa Claws could not win with mafia.

7. Unmafia 3: one mafia and one SK could work together to win.

THose are the only ones that I can think of.

@everywhere: I seem to have forgotten to answer you question earlier. Yes that's the comment I was referencing.

[everywhere116]

@everywhere: I seem to have forgotten to answer you question earlier. Yes that's the comment I was referencing.

May I ask why you believed he was scummy?

[strike wolf]

@everywhere: I seem to have forgotten to answer you question earlier. Yes that's the comment I was referencing.

May I ask why you believed he was scummy?

It's not drake I felt was scummy. I was trying to see if I could bait someone into bandwagoning Drake.

[everywhere116]

@everywhere: I seem to have forgotten to answer you question earlier. Yes that's the comment I was referencing.

May I ask why you believed he was scummy?

It's not drake I felt was scummy. I was trying to see if I could bait someone into bandwagoning Drake.

My guess would be that you were trying to bait General.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

@everywhere: I seem to have forgotten to answer you question earlier. Yes that's the comment I was referencing.

May I ask why you believed he was scummy?

It's not drake I felt was scummy. I was trying to see if I could bait someone into bandwagoning Drake.

My guess would be that you were trying to bait General.

Relevance?

-Tails

[safariguy5]

Ionno, I thought bandwagonning Day 1 has to be taken with a grain of salt because it's much more difficult to get pressure on someone without some bandwagonning. So I don't necessarily think bandwagonning (esp if it's the first real case Day 1) adds much to a case. Certainly if a pattern evolves that's another story.

[edocsil]

Point of reference, in my games a SK cannot win with the Scum unless he is pursuing some alternate win condition.

one mafia v. one SK the SK would have won. multiple mafia would have won over the SK

This is my rule for scum and SK's, barring a setup like the last Pantheon where the SK was thought to be a Scum.

[everywhere116]

@everywhere: I seem to have forgotten to answer you question earlier. Yes that's the comment I was referencing.

May I ask why you believed he was scummy?

It's not drake I felt was scummy. I was trying to see if I could bait someone into bandwagoning Drake.

My guess would be that you were trying to bait General.

Relevance?

-Tails

I must have forgotten to add a "Right?" to the end of that post.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I must have forgotten to add a "Right?" to the end of that post.

Aargh fucking 5 quote limit. What a pain.

No, I meant more along the lines that you seem awfully keen on knowing who Strike was trying to bait. Which makes me wonder why you would harbor such an interest in Strike's actions.

I'm almost more inclined to distrust somebody when they state something along the lines of "well, I was waiting for a response from a certain player," because that in itself could be a ploy to earn points. I mean, sure, maybe he was trying to bait somebody, but for all I know he could've claimed that to make it appear he's active in the scum hunt. Generally, I wouldn't even waste the time to say that I was attempting something (post-failure) because that could possibly tip the person off.

What's the benefit in such an action? Clearly he (Strike) benefits because it presents himself to the players that he's trying tactics and fancy maneuvers to hunt for scum, but it benefits town little, other than to say that Strike has suspicions of a player, as of yet unnamed. I would actually fos Strike for that were it not D1.

-Tails

[jonty125]

Well I personally make it where if it's down to one mafia v. one SK than the Sk wins but yeah. My memory of SKs in games I've been in.

1. Masque of the Red Death: Sk was the only anti-town role.

2. Death Note Mafia: Serial killers could win with "mafia" due to an alternate win condition.

3. Golden Pantheon Greek: Unless I'm mistaken. Serial Killers could not win with mafia.

4. Firefly Mafia-SK had win condition that was not dependent on either side winning.

5. Actors Mafia-If it had come down to one mafia v. one SK the SK would have won. multiple mafia would have won over the SK

6. Futurama Mafia: Not sure but I believe Santa Claws could not win with mafia.

7. Unmafia 3: one mafia and one SK could work together to win.

THose are the only ones that I can think of.

@everywhere: I seem to have forgotten to answer you question earlier. Yes that's the comment I was referencing.

OK, apologies my SK theory appears to be wrong.

[everywhere116]

I must have forgotten to add a "Right?" to the end of that post.

Aargh fucking 5 quote limit. What a pain.

No, I meant more along the lines that you seem awfully keen on knowing who Strike was trying to bait. Which makes me wonder why you would harbor such an interest in Strike's actions.

I'm almost more inclined to distrust somebody when they state something along the lines of "well, I was waiting for a response from a certain player," because that in itself could be a ploy to earn points. I mean, sure, maybe he was trying to bait somebody, but for all I know he could've claimed that to make it appear he's active in the scum hunt. Generally, I wouldn't even waste the time to say that I was attempting something (post-failure) because that could possibly tip the person off.

What's the benefit in such an action? Clearly he (Strike) benefits because it presents himself to the players that he's trying tactics and fancy maneuvers to hunt for scum, but it benefits town little, other than to say that Strike has suspicions of a player, as of yet unnamed. I would actually fos Strike for that were it not D1.

-Tails

I had an interest in strike's motives for many of the same reasons you did. If they were legitimate concerns that he thinks someone is scummy, then my asking of him allows us to refine or dismiss his concerns and opens up discussion, which is always a good thing. If he was attempting to put up a helping-facade while actually doing nothing, then we could call him on that.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I had an interest in strike's motives for many of the same reasons you did. If they were legitimate concerns that he thinks someone is scummy, then my asking of him allows us to refine or dismiss his concerns and opens up discussion, which is always a good thing. If he was attempting to put up a helping-facade while actually doing nothing, then we could call him on that.

Hm. Well, then, I'll get behind you on this one.

Strike, whom were you suspicious of, and why? Or at least, why omit the gory details? The simple act of telling us that you're baiting merely serves to warn 'em off.

-Tails