Hammer Mini Mafia

On January 20 2012 13:36 jaybrundage wrote:

He went /in then /out then back /in again we need
One more

On January 24 2012 11:16 prplhz wrote:
Maybe if the bot is coming up within a day we can start now and then we can figure this instant majority stuff out on our own for the first day? We're all relatively educated human beings.

Sorry. I am aching to start as soon as possible.

On January 25 2012 09:29 GreYMisT wrote:
Yea I had to drop out guys, My schedual just got more busy, and I won't be able to give this game the attention it deserves.

On January 26 2012 12:10 MeatlessTaco wrote:
Townies, we need a plan. The vote system could cause us problems if we don't stick together. We'll need to ascertain what vote-rigging abilities the scum have, to do this we need a circle of trust. We'll all trade votes in a circle instead of doing it haphazardly. Any vote manipulation by the scum will result in merciless lynching.

On January 26 2012 12:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Alright, let's keep it simple and trade one vote each night to the person below us on the list, and last person gives one VP to the top person? That way we all stay at 3 and everything's fair.

On January 26 2012 13:26 MeatlessTaco wrote:
If we have no mayor to elect or other policy discussions, what else can we do to for the next 70 hours?

On January 26 2012 18:28 prplhz wrote:
Everybody should give away as many votes as they can every day. This is a good idea because it will prevent scum from eliminating voting power through night kills, and voting power will only get eliminated through the lynch which is more likely to hit scum than night kills.

On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:
3. You can only give one vote to one player.

On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
1. Every player starts the game with 3 Voting Power, VP, or Votes. During the nightphase a player must give away at least ONE of their votes to ONE other player, who gets the use of those votes in the future. A player can not give away all of their votes.PM the hosts to give away your votes.

On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:
In addition, there will be something called the Self Correcting Fixing Mechanisms
Each day afterwards, votes will be adjusted so that everyone will end up with 3 votes the day after. Because KP is set at 1, at the end of every nights there will be one person with 4 votes, and one person with 2 votes (as their trades to the killed person will be canceled). For the next night, the person with the 4 votes and the person with the two votes will be removed from the circle and they will trade votes. The person with the 4 votes will give the other 2 votes, and the person with 2 votes will give the other 1 vote, leaving each of them with 3.

+ Show Spoiler [Example] +

On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
4. If the one you gave votes to died during the night, then the trade fail and you keep your votes. If you die during the night, then any final attempt to trade away your votes is still resolved. Any other votes you carry at the time of death are lost.

On January 27 2012 09:31 LSB wrote:
The self-correcting mechanism has a ‘flaw’ though, in the above example, if person A dies night two, mafia will net an ‘extra’ vote.
BUT: this isn’t a real flaw. It’s actually is an Advantage. First of all, it will strongly green E as a townie. Second of all, the person with the four votes could be protected by the doctor / slightly greened during the day before he dies.
Mafia is left with a choice. Either to give us information, or to give up a vote, or to keep everything the same. All of which at least break even for town.

On January 27 2012 13:13 LSB wrote:
Let me guess, you'd determine these groups of 3 'randomly'?

On January 27 2012 15:37 MeatlessTaco wrote:


It is the same reason as the two people directly above me who voted for him.

On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:
I vote D1 we circle jerk and see what happens. Just saying "oh you know, there will be people who don't want to follow the plan" the way LSB did excuses that kind of behavior - the plan doesn't work unless we all agree to it. If we can't come to a consensus, then we're all going to just have to do whatever the fuck, and I already know where my votes are going in the event that happens.

On January 27 2012 02:20 Paperscraps wrote:
One thing that needs to happen before this day ends, is unanimous agreement on a trading system.

The 3 decent ideas so a far are:
1. Circle trade 1 vote to the person below you.
2. Circle trade all but 1 vote to the person below you.
3. Everyone posts in this thread who they will trade their vote(s) to during the night.

All of these ideas have pros and cons, but the worst thing for town right now is not to be in agreement be the end of the day.
If we are split or have wild cards like Palmar, then we don't have the complete transparency we need for these systems to be effective.

Personally I think number 1 is the best, most town-favored option. I am always open to more discussion and more ideas.

On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:
Now, the lynch.

##Vote: Paperscraps



This set off alarm bells. My main problem is that he doesn't sound like someone with a town read on Palmar. He sounds like someone who already knows Palmar's alignment is town.

I'm going to be honest - I'm also starting to think Palmar is town, but it's not based on a belief that I think he's acting scummy to test reactions. It could be, but that's not why. I think Palmar is town based almost exclusively on the fact that scummy players like Paperscraps are defending the way he's playing.

On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:


In the first paragraph he outlines a needlessly convoluted plan with the main goal of "keeping the mafia on their toes" by "randomly choosing" who votes go to within smaller groups of townies.

But in the second paragraph, he makes sure to agree with the circlejerk plan. Why? If you support the circle-voting plan then why are you coming up with more options? The day is half over bro, it's time to start thinkin about that LYNCH.

On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:


But not your vote. Why? Whether we've come to a consensus on how to deal with the votes or not, we still have to lynch someone today. That starts with votes. Now, I agree that MeatlessTaco doesn't look great with his lack of reasoning for his votes and blatant sheeping, but lynch? Not to mention the fact that you're in favor of this circlejerk plan...but...

On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:


It was MeatlessTaco's idea! He was the first to suggest it! If it's "the best option", then why are you the most interested in lynching the person who brought it up first? My guess? He doesn't even realize that MT brought it up first. He's just looking for the easiest target, and right now that's someone who suspects Palmar and voted risk.nuke for no reason.

On January 27 2012 16:45 VisceraEyes wrote:
Paperscraps is scum

On January 27 2012 17:55 VisceraEyes wrote:
The point is that if they don't agree with the circle-trading plan, then it doesn't matter what "suggestions" you make, we don't have enough time to come to a unanimous decision. Or more accurately, we don't have time to discuss a lynch AND decide on the plan. But the more pressing concern is the lynch, because we only have one more day to decide that.

And you don't vote. Are you afraid to be held accountable for your vote? Are you waiting for someone to tell you who to vote? You can always change your vote if you change your mind. What if YOUR vote spurs the scummy bandwagon that you catch the WHOLE SCUMTEAM on?

It just stinks of reservation and stalling man, that's all I'm sayin. No need to get all "some people are dense" on me.

On January 27 2012 22:57 Palmar wrote:
The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.

When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.

There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced.

On January 27 2012 19:57 Palmar wrote:
whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.

I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan.

On January 28 2012 05:13 Jackal58 wrote:
Scum can gain voting power by killing the people they trade votes with.

And don't vote for the cowboy. Palmar is town.

On January 28 2012 05:05 Palmar wrote:


You're not helping anyone with that. You're just being dumb. Seeing as you're probably town you're working directly against your win condition.

I didn't suggest anyone randomized, I was just pointing out what a great starting point we had even if we simply randomed. Don't try to see things that aren't there.

On January 28 2012 09:36 layabout wrote:
+ Show Spoiler [Paperscraps last post] +
I am fine with lynching this guy.
What's this i am gonna leave my vote on you crap?
He is also hinting at a no-lynch on the basis that we will likely hit a townie, which is just plain bad

On January 28 2012 10:24 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:


LSB gave a full plan, it convinced me/answered all my questions at any rate, and involves free trade N1 and stabilization N2. Easier to find and detect mafia than just circle trading and working from there.

Also, bugs why the vote?

On January 16 2012 07:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
2. If a player has more than 5 votes, then he must attempt to give away enough to put him at 5 or less votes.

On January 28 2012 11:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:


That's just anti-mafia, at first I don't think we'd want anyone, townie or not, to have 7 VP, even if it means losing influence. Just less risky that way, it's more to examine voting patterns. Who knows, maybe you're right.

On January 28 2012 12:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
That's just anti-mafia, at first I don't think we'd want anyone, townie or not, to have 7 VP, even if it means losing influence. Just less risky that way, it's more to examine voting patterns. Who knows, maybe you're right.

On January 28 2012 12:37 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Balance would leak to mafia though, they'd just kill off the people that are before them so they can pool their votes. I'd rather do perception so that townies can take advantage of VP.

On January 28 2012 13:24 LSB wrote:

This is one of the worst example of logic I've ever read. If I was day vig I'd kill you for trying to make a case out of this.

On January 28 2012 01:06 prplhz wrote:
I need to go shopping now but I'll write something when I get back.

##Vote: wherebugsgo

On January 29 2012 05:16 jaybrundage wrote:
Ok so we obviously are not going to follow the circle vote plan.

So that leaves us with the Pick your Vote and justify it the next day plan. Thats fine. I do see some of Palmar's points more choices mafia have to make. I still think that the mafia might have a really good scum player who may appear town. But that just a risk we are going to have to take. Also i would prefer to give 1 vote rather then 2 just because there's less risk involved but giving away what number of votes is up to the players discretion.

About who to lynch yet im honestly not sure yet I dont support the Sentinel lynch tho. I think his first plan of circle trading was fine and pro town. Gonna go read thru some filters

On January 29 2012 05:34 prplhz wrote:
Hey Paperscraps, move your vote it's stupid.

Being busy for a while doesn't make me more scum, I am always active as either alignment unless I'm actually busy. If you want to force analysis out of people then why did you support the trade-circle?

You voted for me because I didn't provide analysis. Look up there. Now remove your vote. This is a no-flip game, you don't lynch people for no reason.

On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2.

On January 28 2012 09:09 chaoser wrote:
Hi. Let me eat dinner/work out first and I will try to catch up.

On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities?

On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid).

On January 30 2012 06:36 layabout wrote:

fuck off with the "you like wifom shit."

I was merely pointing out that his absence is not something that we can draw conclusions from. risk had said it as if it meant he was scum so i responded by saying that i could similarly draw the opposite conclusion.

also prplhz i wanted people to post that they were in agreement/not in agreement with the balancing act proposal,. I only explained my stance on the lynch because i was asked to. If you look at the words about both topics in my first post today:
+ Show Spoiler +
this should be evident.

Are you actually suggesting that the mafia would have bussed wbg yesterday? How is is scummy to think that that would be so stupid we should not consider it?

On January 30 2012 06:52 LSB wrote:

This is an interesting argument. For the sake of the argument lets assume that WBG was mafia (and try to disprove it)

If WBG was mafia, mafia would attempt to defend him. Why? Because it is no flip and it is less risky defend players. In addition, there is less incentive to bus players because town will not be certain that the mafia you bused was actually mafia.
Therefore the No-flip sets up incentives for more straightforward-town scum play.

Now, to straight out say that there was no defense of WBG would ignore two things. Counterlynches.
At the end of the day there were three important lynches. And a valid tactic would be to try to attract attention to another lynch.
VisceraEyes- Lead by Palmar and Node
[UoN]Sentinal- Proposed by Me, supported by a few other people.

A few things, first of all the WBG counterlynch happened extreamly fast, he went from a few votes to magic majority in about 4 hours. By this time a few of the other lynches were abandoned, both me and Palmar switched to WBG.

The only person who put up a soft 'defence' of WBG was Node as Node was reluctant to lynch WBG. Currently I have a green read of Node.

From here I conclude that it is unlikely there was a mafia defense of WBG, even though there were very solid counterlynches. This could be explained because twoards the end it was less about persuasion, and more about trying to shove a lynch before the deadline. However a last minute push for one of the other two canidates is not impossible in that situation.

Because of this we should treat WBG as a green townie.

On January 30 2012 07:52 layabout wrote:

can you read?

On January 30 2012 16:45 Dirkzor wrote:


He is asking questions this game. He is writing statements. He have an opinion. While he is not the one with the most or longest posts his posts have had something to tell.

In Puragtory he did not do any of those things.

On January 28 2012 13:24 LSB wrote:

This is one of the worst example of logic I've ever read. If I was day vig I'd kill you for trying to make a case out of this.

On January 31 2012 04:26 Paperscraps wrote:
##Unvote VisceraEyes

I agree with risk.nuke.

Palmar we need to slow down a bit here. I agree that either Viscera or Palmar needs to die, but hasty lynches are not good.

From Palmar's perspective Viscera is 100% scum and vice versa, but other townies can't be 100%. (even if the late cc is suspicious)

With that being said, I still believe Viscera is scum and Palmar is town, at this juncture. It is only good for town to talk about this more. See what others think about the lynch.

More analysis/opinions/discussion ----> more material to get reads on people.

On January 31 2012 04:39 Dirkzor wrote:
I agree that either Palmar or VE have to die. Or both due to No flip.

I would vote VE now, but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know) until everyone have had a chance to claim the hit on either one. If no one claims it could still be a scum nightvig. How likely do you find that mafia have a nightvig?

If no one claims the hit I think the jailer should claim. Because if no one claims the hit or the jail we would have lynch both to be sure.

On January 31 2012 04:56 layabout wrote:
You then tried to kill LSB who has done more to help town than any other individual.

On January 31 2012 05:13 layabout wrote:
Scumteam:
1) Palmar or ViceraEyes
2) jaybrundage
3) Meatless taco
4) sentinel
5) jackal58

4 from that, in any order.
Either Palmar or Vicera is scum due to claims. (them both being town and claiming hits with no NK and 1 scum KP is extremely unlikely)
None of these players has looked very town to me.

On January 31 2012 06:00 prplhz wrote:
Can people please vote/hammer VisceraEyes? Look at wherebugsgo yesterday, he was killed in half an hour. Why is it taking so much longer today when VisceraEyes is way more scummier than wherebugsgo was? Plenty of people around.

Palmar is hit night1 as town just about every game. VisceraEyes has never been hit by scum night1. QED. I think the only people in this town who would shoot day1 as vigilante is Palmar and chaoser and they'd both claim immediately after and they've both had the chance.

VisceraEyes clearly dies today and we have at 36 hours until next lynch which is plenty so stop using that as an excuse. Vote him now so we can get on with the game.

On January 31 2012 06:09 LSB wrote:
A few things to note, Palmar has been doing a lot of fear-mongering throughout the day. He essentially has no reasoning besides "Vote along what I say or else I'm going to include you in my magical scum list". If fact the only reasons why he gave to lynch me is "LSB didn't give votes to me, and he gave votes to someone I don't like QQ".

That being said, VE has a late claim. And it's a pretty unbelievable claim. Oh well I guess it's something to keep on the back of my mind.
##Vote: VisceraEyes

On January 31 2012 09:07 chaoser wrote:
Guys...seriously...why did Day end? I'm so confused.

On January 31 2012 08:51 layabout wrote:

Fuck you

On January 31 2012 18:42 Palmar wrote:
actually, if anyone has a bullet, killing layabout or LSB isn't a bad idea.

On January 31 2012 19:41 prplhz wrote:
Killing people isn't about who has this or that many votes, it's about hitting scum. Doesn't matter how many votes they have then.

On January 31 2012 21:09 Palmar wrote:
yeah, what's better? living scum with 4 votes or dead scum with 4 votes?

On February 01 2012 04:30 chaoser wrote:


You yourself stated only that you didn't want to hammer the vote even though your vote wouldn't have hammered. This added reason of "I did not want to vote because I didn't want SOMEONE ELSE to hammer" was not mentioned then and so I can not willingly believe this point since it has only just now been introduced.

On February 01 2012 05:15 chaoser wrote:


But palmar's only real argument against LSB is that he gave his vote to layabout. When compared to what layabout has done and posted, I don't think it's the same condemning thing at all.

On February 01 2012 05:30 layabout wrote:

are you serious?

On February 01 2012 10:44 Paperscraps wrote:
Yeah, it looks like the votes given to Palmar were siphoned to layabout.

Now I see why layabout was so adamant that we wasn't going to give votes away, to justify having soo many today. Anyways layabout needs to die.

##Vote layabout

On February 01 2012 10:44 jaybrundage wrote:
Our Hero has fallen D:

Wait shouldnt Prplhz still have his votes because palmar died during the night? Im confused about this.

Also I gave one vote to Jackal58 because i have a town read on him.

Paperscraps why would you give risk.nuke votes when palmars reads were on risk.nuke being possible scum?\

On February 01 2012 10:50 chaoser wrote:


I think that they were expecting this to be THE game ending power play though.

I mean...given layabout's play through the game, I'm 90% certain he's mafia.

On February 01 2012 11:01 jaybrundage wrote:
Paperscraps my biggest concern is who the remaining mafia is. I mean obviously we have to kill layabout. But im not sure if a instant hammer would be the best option (OR would it?) My biggest question is who is layabout going to try to kill.

My other question is how did chaoser get so many votes. It seems odd that he does speak much and gets that high number of votes.

We should of expected this mechanic btw. And been more proactive with spreading our votes out. Like we did the first day. Instead of piling them on palmar. But hindsind is 20/20

##Vote: Layabout

On January 31 2012 07:21 Paperscraps wrote:
Well to get the night discussion going i have a few thoughts. Based on last night's actions palmar is likely to live again. Given that he is town, palmar will likely receive a lot of votes. Which is a concern for me. After day three palmar will have to give away a bunch of votes to someone else. Since nobody else is confirmed town yet, this presents a problem. Granted more information is sure to be revealed tomorrow, will another confirmed townie be revealed? Right now we need to decide if we want palmar to have enough votes to hammer by himself tomorrow or keep vp spread out a bit. Enabling one player to hammer is bad idea, now that i think of it. Essentially this nullifies any thoughts the rest of the town has and the town's influence as a whole, which is bad. No one person should be in control of the game, even the cowboy palmar.

On February 01 2012 11:08 jaybrundage wrote:
Well note i didnt trade with palmar either day.

But paperscraps who do you figure as the last mafia and why?

On February 01 2012 11:18 jaybrundage wrote:

My FOS on you? please elaborate

On February 01 2012 11:01 jaybrundage wrote:
Paperscraps my biggest concern is who the remaining mafia is.

On February 01 2012 10:39 chaoser wrote:
Obviously layabout needs to tell us who he gave votes to but right now it looks like to me, that Palmer was probably right about his reads. Might have been a last ditch ploy (obviously there was some way/probably mafia action that allowed layabout to get to 10 votes, there's no way people actually gave him that many...right?) to get enough votes to gain majority outright and win the game. Thank god Node killed LSB or who knows what might have happened.

On February 01 2012 10:46 chaoser wrote:
##vote layabout

I probably won't be changing my vote. Unless layabout gives some amazing explanation.

On February 01 2012 05:15 chaoser wrote:


But palmar's only real argument against LSB is that he gave his vote to layabout. When compared to what layabout has done and posted, I don't think it's the same condemning thing at all.

On February 02 2012 01:26 Jackal58 wrote:
Now that I am sober and on the better end of a hangover I think I am able to make a bit of sense out of this. The vote siphon role doesn't make sense unless it's a one off ability or we would have seen it already I think. What does make sense is scum has a bus driver.

On February 02 2012 01:26 chaoser wrote:
This gets rid of not only however many votes [layabout] would be stealing but also get rid of however votes I would end up having.

On January 30 2012 11:00 chaoser wrote:
4) I think paperscapes and LSB give me tonie vibes. paperscapes posts have been informative while also have shown that he is trying to create a positive town environment. Especially here, a good post to keep people on topic and recenter the debate about vote trading: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505&currentpage=12#229

LSB, as well, put forth a good vote plan though I disagree with it (I like the free-trade idea better)

On February 01 2012 03:51 chaoser wrote:
Secondly, Townies in my head:

Palmar - Stop being a dick, I've PMed the mods about it. There's aggressive play and then there's dickish play. You're doing the latter.
Paperscape
LSB

Scums in my head:

Dirkzor
Layabout
???

On February 01 2012 03:59 chaoser wrote:
Actually, I take back my townie read on LSB. Re-reading through his filter has made me downgrade him to a neutral. I will need to think again about his alignment. I still stand by my assessment of layabout.

On February 01 2012 05:15 chaoser wrote:


But palmar's only real argument against LSB is that he gave his vote to layabout. When compared to what layabout has done and posted, I don't think it's the same condemning thing at all.

On February 01 2012 10:39 chaoser wrote:
Obviously layabout needs to tell us who he gave votes to but right now it looks like to me, that Palmer was probably right about his reads. Might have been a last ditch ploy (obviously there was some way/probably mafia action that allowed layabout to get to 10 votes, there's no way people actually gave him that many...right?) to get enough votes to gain majority outright and win the game. Thank god Node killed LSB or who knows what might have happened.

On January 30 2012 16:19 Dirkzor wrote:
I wanted to give palmar or LSB my vote - in that order. But figured that they would get a lot of votes anyway. Then i started to look for a less obvious townie.

I gave him 1 vote because i think he is town. I was just playing with him Purgatory (he was scum) where he played differently then what he does now.

On January 29 2012 21:25 Dirkzor wrote:
I will only give away 1 vote. No matter what plan or what trick I won't give away more then 1 vote.

On January 31 2012 04:39 Dirkzor wrote:
I agree that either Palmar or VE have to die. Or both due to No flip.

I would vote VE now, but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know) until everyone have had a chance to claim the hit on either one. If no one claims it could still be a scum nightvig. How likely do you find that mafia have a nightvig?

If no one claims the hit I think the jailer should claim. Because if no one claims the hit or the jail we would have lynch both to be sure.

On February 01 2012 04:03 chaoser wrote:
Huh? Who is they? layabout and dirkzor? Or do you mean LSB and layabout?

I don't think the latter if that's what you're saying

On February 01 2012 04:09 chaoser wrote:
I have respect for players who I think are good but that doesn't mean if they don't agree with me or see things my way that they are immediately scummy. There have been many times that I have disagreed with other good townie players and is to be expected. In my opinion, Layabout on day 1 was less scummy than dirkzor or VE. It was only his posting on day two that pushed him into extremely scummy. So I can understand LSB's justification for giving him a vote.

On February 01 2012 04:20 chaoser wrote:
His[Dirkzor] forced vote on prplhz reminds me of VE's forced votes and posts on both you and paperscapes. His defense of his vote was, in my opinion, lacking. He added nothing of substance to the VE lynch posting:



in which he discredits his OWN reason for not voting VE: "but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know)" and then adds in a weird suggestion about how the jailer should claim.

He then continues to criticize VE with:



when he himself has been equally noncommital:

On February 01 2012 04:23 chaoser wrote:
The only post that I like so far is his[Dirkzor] post on LSB and that one I am currently checking with LSB's posts in context. Aside from that though, he gives off scummy reads to me.

On January 31 2012 02:38 Dirkzor wrote:
Just because palmar is almost certainly town does not mean his reads are correct. But how can you question his towness? I can't think of a scenario where scum would have the guts to not shoot, only so Palmar could claim to get jailed.

About LSB, who Palmar wants dead, and 2 more sheeped (wtf?):

He have been very vocal and active so he must be town - or what Prplhz? (joking)

What bothers me about his filter is that he have constantly been pushing his plans.

Plan 1 (click) was basicly the same idea that was already in the thread + the self correction mechanism.

Rough layout of Plan 2 (click)

Then he sees the light (click) as an explanition to why he changed from his plan 1 to plan 2. Is the same post he calls Sentinel scum for essentially supporting what was his Plan 1 (see spoiler below)
+ Show Spoiler +

Why is it that Sentinels logic is scummy when LSB himself had the same logic to begin with? In his 2nd case/post on sentinel he is even calling him scummy even though he changed his mind later on - the same way LSB saw the light and changed his mind when paperscraps called him out on it. Its a double standard at its finest.

+ Show Spoiler +

I would not oppose a LSB lynch at this moment.

On February 01 2012 04:21 Dirkzor wrote:
What I find weird is that multiple people have called me scum with no reasoning at all.

Chaoser, node and Prp (he gave a little, but bad, reasoning)...

On February 01 2012 18:51 Dirkzor wrote:
Why the fuck would layabout give 4 votes to chaoser? Assume Chaoser is scum for now.

Before night 2 Layabout, LSB and Chaoser had:

chaoser (3)
LSB (2)
layabout (5)
8 votes in total.

We know Layabout somehow got vote he shouldn't.
We know it fits the amount of votes (8/9 doesnt matter who LSB sent his vote to it would end up at Layabout either way) sent to palmar.
We can assume that scum syphoned the votes traded to Palmar in order to gain the majority of the votes.

Trades night 2:

Sent:
chaoser (3) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 2 votes left
LSB (2) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 1 vote left
layabout (5) -> 4 votes to chaoser = 1 vote left

Received:
chaoser (3) + 4 votes from Layabout = 6 total
LSB (2) + 0 votes = 1 total (0 as he died)
layabout (5) + 9 votes (intercepted from palmar) = 10 votes

Had layabout only given away 1 vote or given his votes to palmar (thus giving to himself) layabout would have been on 14 or 15.

1) Why did he not send his votes to palmar - which meant himself?
2) Why did he not send to LSB?
3) Why did layabout not keep as many votes for himself as possible?

1) If Layabout was shot during night the votes would have probably ended at Palmar. Not a good situation for scum.
2) The pressure was on LSB and Layabout. If layabout had send votes to LSB it would just further incriminate the 2 as scumbuddies. Would not have been a problem had mafia gained majority but if they didn't the votes would be better on the last remaining scum.
3) Same as 1 and 2. If layabout was shot the votes would have been lost. It was the best of 2 worlds for scum to send the votes to chaoser. If they had gained majority it didn't matter where the votes where. If they didn't the remaining votes would be on the last scum who we hadn't caught on to yet (chaoser).

If scum were to use the most insanely overpowered powerrole in this game it would be insanely stupid of them to give AWAY votes.

Which is why chaoser is the last scum.

On February 02 2012 05:19 prplhz wrote:
The bussing ability is usually not a one shot ability? Then I don't fully get why scum didn't use it night1.

On February 02 2012 06:16 chaoser wrote:
We're doing so well as town it doesn't even matter if i get lynched or not lol.

Aside from me though Paper, I would like to know your scale of scumminess. If possible.

On February 02 2012 06:07 chaoser wrote:
I don't mind a lynch. layabout's vote-pass to me was a pretty good play by him to falsely incriminate me. I just think you're all being misled by Dirkzor and layabout. I'm giving my votes away to someone I think is pro-town. After I get lynched though, lynch dirkzor.

On February 02 2012 19:40 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I have a funny feeling about Taco, he cast his vote for me without explanation D1, maybe part of the same bandwagon that bugs, layabout and LSB were on.

Chaoser right now to me is orange. If we had to vote right now, I wouldn't cast my vote for him, but I'd still be pretty suspicious.

On February 03 2012 06:47 Paperscraps wrote:
I believe much will be revealed after tonight.

Incase I die, I leave you all with this.

steganography

On January 28 2012 10:34 Paperscraps wrote:
Understand that i am fully for lynching, i was just wondering what other peoples thoughts were on it. Now i feel as though i am being condemned for wanting to interact with town and strike up important and relevant discussions. Does being active and opposing palmar make me scum? Either you guys are using meta which i am unaware of or know something about palmar i dont. Right now though i am realizing that my talking so much about plans is upsetting people. Thing is, i dont care whether we do the free trade plan or circle trade plan, as long as the town is in unision. A point i made pretty early on in the thread. Keep in mind the people pushing for their respective plan can have hidden agendas. Even if we decided on a plan, we don't know if mafia or town was pushing for it on day one. Reminder: you cant trust anyone.

On January 31 2012 07:21 Paperscraps wrote:
Well to get the night discussion going i have a few thoughts. Based on last night's actions palmar is likely to live again. Given that he is town, palmar will likely receive a lot of votes. Which is a concern for me. After day three palmar will have to give away a bunch of votes to someone else. Since nobody else is confirmed town yet, this presents a problem. Granted more information is sure to be revealed tomorrow, will another confirmed townie be revealed? Right now we need to decide if we want palmar to have enough votes to hammer by himself tomorrow or keep vp spread out a bit. Enabling one player to hammer is bad idea, now that i think of it. Essentially this nullifies any thoughts the rest of the town has and the town's influence as a whole, which is bad. No one person should be in control of the game, even the cowboy palmar.

On February 02 2012 17:26 Paperscraps wrote:
Visceraeyes wasn't the top person on chaoser's scumlist, yet he doesn't announce who his top scum reads are until two days later. Even if chaoser is town, his town play has been reactionary and not proactive in finding scum. Which is why it would be easy to frame him sure, but it is not a huge loss for town really either. Also we have three mis-lynches until lylo, which means we get to lynch four more people, if people are killed every night of course. So the more i think about this, if chaoser gives aways all his votes tomorrow i am definitely willing to discuss other lynch options. Really for mafia's plan in framing chaoser to work, they have to have someone who seems pro-town. Experience tells us that palmar's fos on risk.nuke is something to be seriously considered. Divulging our roles tomorrow will help greatly in the scumhunt.