Mafia - Red Scare Game Thread

[ZachEY]

Sticking to you POV despite evidence to the contrary is textbook klogical thinking

Your 'evidence' is your opinion, which I don't agree with.

[shutout]

Looks like you ladies are having a fun time.

Nice to see I haven't been forgotten, although there will be an invoice in the mail heading your way for the use of my likeness, doggin.

Good luck, ****ers.

Vote: Bleedin'

How's that for out of the box?

[CTM]

Your 'evidence' is your opinion, which I don't agree with.

You keep saying today is smallest chance of lynching scum. There's numerous situations that prove this assertion false. Not opinion, facts.

If we lynch scum today, the odds of lynching scum tomorrow are smaller then they were today. Fact.

[Verbal]

In my opinion, the folks who are trying to steer us to the No Lynch are the most likely suspects. Nobody can dispute the following 2 statements:

1. If we No Lynch today, we have no chance at getting lucky and lynching a mafia.

2. Assuming the above No Lynch, the mafia get their NK (also assuming the Doc doesn't block it), and we start Day 2 in the same position as Day 1, minus the potential dead innocent......but with less time.

We need lynches, we need information that comes with voting, and we need to take a good look at the probable mafia hiding in the No Lynch vote. I would imagine they are dividing themselves, but I would not be surprised to have at least 1 in there....

[The Crusher]

Continue to ignore that your forfeiting your smallest chance in the game to kill scum.

Excuse me, excuse Mr. yellin. Why would the town want to forfeit ANY chance to kill scum? No matter how small? Earlier I was thinking that maybe this was the twist of the outside the box thing, but now it's losing its luster. We still have 3 days to scumhunt and look at trains.

[Smashmouth]

Looks like you ladies are having a fun time.

Nice to see I haven't been forgotten, although there will be an invoice in the mail heading your way for the use of my likeness, doggin.

Good luck, ****ers.

Hey Bleedin hows it going

[Jets Voice of Reason]

This will be a small, fast mafia game - no more than 12 players can sign up, and (with the exception of day 1) days and nights will run on tight deadlines.

First come, first served. But be warned - you'll need to think outside the box if you want to win this game.

1) JiF

2) EY

3) Crusher

4) Irish Jet

5) Slats

6) CTM

7) Pac

8) Klecko

9) Verbal

10) Vicious

2 open spots

Why the emphasis on you can't win this game unless you think differently? Seriously, do you all work for Eric Mangini? All i'm seeing is round peg inserted into square hole. Why all the emphasis on red scare and saying it is very difficult to win this game? Just a coverup to get us to overthink it? Possibly, but can we please just consider the gimmick behind the setup?

However, if there is indeed scum, EY is bright and center on my radar.

1) I've been scum with him a few times and he's big on surviving day one being the main goal. No Lynching would indeed fit his criteria. 2) He's been very vocal in games past about disliking No lynch as an option. Why the sudden change of heart? I've given my reasoning, which has nothing to do with gameplay. His gameplay based explanation i take a lot of issue with. You always run the risk of outting power roles by lynching without investigations, this whole extending the game by half a cycle talk rubs me the wrong way. It's saying let's make mafia make the decisions instead of town. Me no likey.

The argument I am making is perhaps the win condition is saying, hey, maybe there are no communists among us? And Doggin is just letting the paranoia among us have at it? I also wonder why only alignment is released and not role. If there is ever a point where a communist goes down, fine, I abandon this line of thinking. I was wrong. But why this change in mechanics of the game? I was just wondering, what if there is a vig type role that shoots and makes it look like there is a mafia kill when there really isn't?

I never advocate no lynching with mislynches available. Had this been a normal setup with no disclaimers i'd be very much in favor of lynching.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

*insert obligatory apology if i'm wrong*

I must be scum.

[slats]

The argument I am making is perhaps the win condition is saying, hey, maybe there are no communists among us? And Doggin is just letting the paranoia among us have at it? I also wonder why only alignment is released and not role. If there is ever a point where a communist goes down, fine, I abandon this line of thinking. I was wrong. But why this change in mechanics of the game? I was just wondering, what if there is a vig type role that shoots and makes it look like there is a mafia kill when there really isn't?

Interesting, but how would such a game work? If we're all innocent, at what point would we win?

I've thought about the setup, too, thinking that the extra paranoia might all be part of the Commie concept, and that maybe it's just a pretty straight game beyond trying to get us all to do things differently. But I haven't convinced myself of that one, yet.

[Klecko73isGod]

Time to put the thinking cap on..

Awww. You know I hate doin' that!

[The Crusher]

Why the emphasis on you can't win this game unless you think differently? Seriously, do you all work for Eric Mangini? All i'm seeing is round peg inserted into square hole. Why all the emphasis on red scare and saying it is very difficult to win this game? Just a coverup to get us to overthink it? Possibly, but can we please just consider the gimmick behind the setup?

However, if there is indeed scum, EY is bright and center on my radar.

1) I've been scum with him a few times and he's big on surviving day one being the main goal. No Lynching would indeed fit his criteria. 2) He's been very vocal in games past about disliking No lynch as an option. Why the sudden change of heart? I've given my reasoning, which has nothing to do with gameplay. His gameplay based explanation i take a lot of issue with. You always run the risk of outting power roles by lynching without investigations, this whole extending the game by half a cycle talk rubs me the wrong way. It's saying let's make mafia make the decisions instead of town. Me no likey.

The argument I am making is perhaps the win condition is saying, hey, maybe there are no communists among us? And Doggin is just letting the paranoia among us have at it? I also wonder why only alignment is released and not role. If there is ever a point where a communist goes down, fine, I abandon this line of thinking. I was wrong. But why this change in mechanics of the game? I was just wondering, what if there is a vig type role that shoots and makes it look like there is a mafia kill when there really isn't?

I never advocate no lynching with mislynches available. Had this been a normal setup with no disclaimers i'd be very much in favor of lynching.

I was thinking this too actually. Is it possible that their really isn't any communist in the game? That the Red Scare is actually that. Fear. Their was a time in this country that everybody thought everyone else was a communist. Maybe this game is designed for us to bump ourselves off. Maybe their is a serial killer and or a vigilante and we just saw in the last game how effective they are at taking over a game. This is a very good point and the best point of the game. EY's annoying number joggling post have been pissing me off.

unvote

Even though JVOR pwned me in the crazy cop game this seems to be a very thoughtful and honest town post.

Yet if their really isn;t any communist in this game it kinda gives credence to the No Lynch idea. Then again we could still lose two players at night, one from the vig one from the sk, and we really wouldnt be sure if it was the commies at night. Or we could keep lynching ourselfves during the day and the sk and vig could be popping ouselves at night. All this thinking is making me hungry.

[The Crusher]

Awww. You know I hate doin' that!

Use the force brother Klecko, use the force.

[CTM]

Why the emphasis on you can't win this game unless you think differently? Seriously, do you all work for Eric Mangini? All i'm seeing is round peg inserted into square hole. Why all the emphasis on red scare and saying it is very difficult to win this game? Just a coverup to get us to overthink it? Possibly, but can we please just consider the gimmick behind the setup?

However, if there is indeed scum, EY is bright and center on my radar.

1) I've been scum with him a few times and he's big on surviving day one being the main goal. No Lynching would indeed fit his criteria. 2) He's been very vocal in games past about disliking No lynch as an option. Why the sudden change of heart? I've given my reasoning, which has nothing to do with gameplay. His gameplay based explanation i take a lot of issue with. You always run the risk of outting power roles by lynching without investigations, this whole extending the game by half a cycle talk rubs me the wrong way. It's saying let's make mafia make the decisions instead of town. Me no likey.

The argument I am making is perhaps the win condition is saying, hey, maybe there are no communists among us? And Doggin is just letting the paranoia among us have at it? I also wonder why only alignment is released and not role. If there is ever a point where a communist goes down, fine, I abandon this line of thinking. I was wrong. But why this change in mechanics of the game? I was just wondering, what if there is a vig type role that shoots and makes it look like there is a mafia kill when there really isn't?

I never advocate no lynching with mislynches available. Had this been a normal setup with no disclaimers i'd be very much in favor of lynching.

I missed this or forgot it..

Given that he won't allow us to vote for people not in the game, or himself, the thinking outside the box + crytpic you won't win comments + mccarthy flavor leads me to think you may be on to something

And despite spending the last 2 pages arguing against, it, I am warming to the idea. What gives me pause, is that we are playing the mod, which is usually a fruitless path

[Doggin94it]

Vote Count

EY (4) - CTM, Pac, Slats, Irish

No lynch (3) - JVoR, EY, Smashmouth

Smashmouth (1) - Klecko

JVoR (3) - Vicious, JiF

Not voting: Verbal, Crusher

With 12 players alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

Deadline: Monday morning at 9 am. All further days will be 72 hours.

[ZachEY]

Excuse me, excuse Mr. yellin. Why would the town want to forfeit ANY chance to kill scum? No matter how small? Earlier I was thinking that maybe this was the twist of the outside the box thing, but now it's losing its luster. We still have 3 days to scumhunt and look at trains.

Because when you don't kill scum, you actually do kill an innocent, and then tonight another one dies, and for some reason, that leaves you believing that based on one train of an innocent, you will lynch scum day two...

[ZachEY]

I'm reminded of a quote by Maximus Decimus Meridian.

[ZachEY]

Why the emphasis on you can't win this game unless you think differently? Seriously, do you all work for Eric Mangini? All i'm seeing is round peg inserted into square hole. Why all the emphasis on red scare and saying it is very difficult to win this game? Just a coverup to get us to overthink it? Possibly, but can we please just consider the gimmick behind the setup?

However, if there is indeed scum, EY is bright and center on my radar.

1) I've been scum with him a few times and he's big on surviving day one being the main goal. No Lynching would indeed fit his criteria. 2) He's been very vocal in games past about disliking No lynch as an option. Why the sudden change of heart? I've given my reasoning, which has nothing to do with gameplay. His gameplay based explanation i take a lot of issue with. You always run the risk of outting power roles by lynching without investigations, this whole extending the game by half a cycle talk rubs me the wrong way. It's saying let's make mafia make the decisions instead of town. Me no likey.

The argument I am making is perhaps the win condition is saying, hey, maybe there are no communists among us? And Doggin is just letting the paranoia among us have at it? I also wonder why only alignment is released and not role. If there is ever a point where a communist goes down, fine, I abandon this line of thinking. I was wrong. But why this change in mechanics of the game? I was just wondering, what if there is a vig type role that shoots and makes it look like there is a mafia kill when there really isn't?

I never advocate no lynching with mislynches available. Had this been a normal setup with no disclaimers i'd be very much in favor of lynching.

Yeah, I've preached about suriving day one... and with that fact, that's exactly why I've decided to stand my ground and dig my heels in, rather than just stay in the background and allow some other schmuck to get lynched... Because every train was pointing at scum and I felt the need to save them by pushing a 'no lynch' option rather than trying to turn the day on someone else... Clearly then I'm working with smashmouth, that's obvious, and I forget who else may have had 3 votes at that time, but if you go back, that's your scum team, line us up.

Then again, if you want to be reminded of a game where my style was similar, I'd look to Henry Hill. I took an unpopular position going after a guy who had not a single vote, thereby drawing undue attention to myself... Then, I nailed scum on day two, easily called that I was being set up, and everyone ignored it, so I got bored, went nuts, and at the end of the day, was oh so very right. So very right...

Also, I actually did some research and came up with a list of thoughts, and no one wants to talk about it. So, go ahead and lynch me, but don't say I didn't warn you.

[The Crusher]

Because when you don't kill scum, you actually do kill an innocent, and then tonight another one dies, and for some reason, that leaves you believing that based on one train of an innocent, you will lynch scum day two...

Yeah their might be more of us but their right every time they pick. We might want to keep our picks unless we want choose try and play Doggin instead. Do we try and get lucky to find a scum, or do we try the ill-advised play the moderator trick. If the moderator was someone simple like Chan that would be ok, but Doggin is like all powerful in teh mafia. Like a the Wizard of Oz if he was a lawyer.

[ZachEY]

Yeah their might be more of us but their right every time they pick. We might want to keep our picks unless we want choose try and play Doggin instead. Do we try and get lucky to find a scum, or do we try the ill-advised play the moderator trick. If the moderator was someone simple like Chan that would be ok, but Doggin is like all powerful in teh mafia. Like a the Wizard of Oz if he was a lawyer.

Lynch me.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

[The Crusher]

Lynch me.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

I didn't vote for you EY. I think I might even believe you. time wnill tell. This game is like the X files, Doggin jammin our reality up and stuff. I miss the good old days wear their where good guys bad guys and child molesters. Wholesome fun.

[CTM]

Yeah, I've preached about suriving day one... and with that fact, that's exactly why I've decided to stand my ground and dig my heels in, rather than just stay in the background and allow some other schmuck to get lynched... Because every train was pointing at scum and I felt the need to save them by pushing a 'no lynch' option rather than trying to turn the day on someone else... Clearly then I'm working with smashmouth, that's obvious, and I forget who else may have had 3 votes at that time, but if you go back, that's your scum team, line us up.

Then again, if you want to be reminded of a game where my style was similar, I'd look to Henry Hill. I took an unpopular position going after a guy who had not a single vote, thereby drawing undue attention to myself... Then, I nailed scum on day two, easily called that I was being set up, and everyone ignored it, so I got bored, went nuts, and at the end of the day, was oh so very right. So very right...

Also, I actually did some research and came up with a list of thoughts, and no one wants to talk about it. So, go ahead and lynch me, but don't say I didn't warn you.

Dude!

First off, the mafia nab was such unbelievably poor play that it was hard to believe scum would be that obvious. Still, i know for a fact that i was also looking in that direction until you blew your lid. No reason for a repeat performance.

Secondly, i can already see you starting a meltdown, which is counterproductive. You are creating strawman arguments. Nobody asserted you voted nolynch to save smashmouth, you asked for a plausible explanation and a potential one was provided, thats it.

At the end of the day, your no lynch strategy is questionable at best and goes against the grain of prevailing strategy in 2/1/1 setup. Further, if you wanted to go this route, the better strategy is to have the cop role claim right now, so you aren't even playing this hand properly imo..

That being said, if you are voting no lynch partially based on Jvor's rationale, it seems more sensible to me, given what we know about doggin.

[ZachEY]

Dude!

First off, the mafia nab was such unbelievably poor play that it was hard to believe scum would be that obvious. Still, i know for a fact that i was also looking in that direction until you blew your lid. No reason for a repeat performance.

Secondly, i can already see you starting a meltdown, which is counterproductive. You are creating strawman arguments. Nobody asserted you voted nolynch to save smashmouth, you asked for a plausible explanation and a potential one was provided, thats it.

At the end of the day, your no lynch strategy is questionable at best and goes against the grain of prevailing strategy in 2/1/1 setup. Further, if you wanted to go this route, the better strategy is to have the cop role claim right now, so you aren't even playing this hand properly imo..

That being said, if you are voting no lynch partially based on Jvor's rationale, it seems more sensible to me, given what we know about doggin.

Then lynch me.

And don't say I didn't warn YOU.

[ZachEY]

Whereas you and Smashmouth definitely have my attention.

.

[ZachEY]

Maybe smashmouth or pac is scummate, and don't want to lose..

.

[CTM]

.

Maybe being key word.

You are making my point. You asked playing field why you would take these actions as scum, I offered only 1 possible reason.

I didn't say that's what i thought, was simply disagreeing with the "why would i do that" line of defense. Plenty of reasons to do it...

[CTM]

Then lynch me.

And don't say I didn't warn YOU.

Ey's about to got double vulva on us..

[Smashmouth]

My case against you is weak.

And i am actually thinking of no lynch, not because it's a sound strategy, but because it's a doggin game that he's attempting to influence with his you will not win stuff..

And that would be your reason for going no lynch ? Need more from you other than "its a Doggin game" Seems your hiding behind something here Chan. Common sense is a good example of why you might vote no lynch, your explanation is just weak here. Did you ever think that the person who started the no lynch bandwagon might know something you dont ? Doggin get in your head much ? I think a No lynch may play a big part later in the game as well due to whats going on right now.

[Smashmouth]

In the beginning were busting each other's balls and having fun and now we're debating procedure and strategy.

It just seems that the game suddenly got serious.

It usually works that way Kleck

[slats]

Also, I actually did some research and came up with a list of thoughts, and no one wants to talk about it. So, go ahead and lynch me, but don't say I didn't warn you.

You've got me listed as your suspect #2. You're dead wrong there, so I'm really not feeling your instincts the rest of the way. I'm more suspicious of Smashmouth than JiF, but you have them reversed on your list. Your ominous warnings aren't really phasing me here. At this early stage of the game, I know you're wrong on one point, and don't agree with you on others.

I've said all along that I was willing to go no lynch as we get closer to the deadline, but I really didn't even want to go there. The whole idea would be to put genuine pressure on people, not token pressure that doesn't get honestly responded to. The idea that we'll just settle on a no lynch in the end takes away a lot of the power of probing on the only extended day phase we'll have in this game. Which is really why I never got the idea of going for a quick no lynch.

[JustInFudge]

**** you guys for making me read 3 pages when I'm this hungover. Apparently I'm some peoples top suspect. I'm flattered.

[Doggin94it]

Vote Count

EY (4) - CTM, Pac, Slats, Irish

No lynch (3) - JVoR, EY, Smashmouth

Smashmouth (1) - Klecko

JVoR (3) - Vicious, JiF

Not voting: Verbal, Crusher

With 12 players alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

Deadline: Monday morning at 9 am. All further days will be 72 hours.

[The Crusher]

**** you guys for making me read 3 pages when I'm this hungover. Apparently I'm some peoples top suspect. I'm flattered.

Shut up whore.

[Klecko73isGod]

Shut up whore.

[The Crusher]

You've got me listed as your suspect #2. You're dead wrong there, so I'm really not feeling your instincts the rest of the way. I'm more suspicious of Smashmouth than JiF, but you have them reversed on your list. Your ominous warnings aren't really phasing me here. At this early stage of the game, I know you're wrong on one point, and don't agree with you on others.

I've said all along that I was willing to go no lynch as we get closer to the deadline, but I really didn't even want to go there. The whole idea would be to put genuine pressure on people, not token pressure that doesn't get honestly responded to. The idea that we'll just settle on a no lynch in the end takes away a lot of the power of probing on the only extended day phase we'll have in this game. Which is really why I never got the idea of going for a quick no lynch.

JVOR's post explains it very well. Go read it. EY might be wrong about you, that will be determined later, but I think he may be on to something as far as the no lynch thing.

[ZachEY]

You've got me listed as your suspect #2. You're dead wrong there

Oh, well in that case...