My Little Pony: Friendship is Mafia

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't know, I feel a bit like Snake's shut us down a bit- normallly (read: every mafia game on here except hthe last one) we through out some random votes then somebody in response says something totally suspect and we lynch them and all their buddies. Works pretty well then.
I don't know how we're supposed to get info now that Snake has called out the random voters, all the scum can just hide behind the "I didn't want to be a random voter" now.
If it was anybody else I would think it was a bit scummy but to be honest it fits with Snakes posting so Imma chalk it up to snake being snake..

So in lieu of that we could try and figure out what kind of roles we think are floating around though this would arm the scum with fake role claims potentially so I don't think we should do that.

So I'm asking Snake- without the churning activity causing byrandom voting how do you suggest we proceed day 1?
The only thing I can come up with is rounding out the inactives- Sif posted that it could help the Scum I don't agree. The scum k now who each other are, they don't want information to be spread around the town- the more the town talks the more likely scum will be given away/incriminated. The problem last game was half the town not really playing- so there was little discussion and the scum had strong control of the vote.
But I mean this is not my favoured plan but I don't have any other one right now.
More posting//opinions from other players wouldbeuseful.

[Solid Snake]

The role call idea is terrible and should die quickly in a fire.

The 'random voting' D1 strategy didn't work in Homestuck Mafia, rarely works in most Mafia games, and won't work now. Again, Mafia has the advantage of knowing who is on the rest of their team and who isn't. It is very easy under the guise of 'random voting' for Mafiates to simply refuse to ever suspect each other and instead exclusively suspect town simply due to the statistical reality that there are considerably more town out there than scum. And it is notoriously easy for random voters to then chalk up their votes for random townies as "Well, that's what we do D1, we just toss around random votes like a chump and pray we hit something."

I can't possibly see how preventing that line of terrible logic from justifying scum's potential D1 actions . Personally, I'd much rather vote an inactive out simply for being inactive (or barely-active, barely-contributing) D1 than engage in a Random votefest, though the ideal option is to grill each other.

So I'm asking Snake- without the churning activity causing byrandom voting how do you suggest we proceed day 1?

Research past Mafia games (Homestuck was recent enough, admittingly the more distant the game the less likely the evidence is relevant.) Search for discrepancies in behavior or similar patterns of behavior.

Fenris pulled this strategy off (as scum) in Homestuck Mafia but, newsflash, the reason Fenris pulled this off (as scum) in Homestuck is because it's usually a tried and true pro-town strategy, and his cherry-picking way of doing so helped him sound pro-town as hell. Furthermore, by announcing this strategy outright I'm going to now make Scum worry about sounding as much as possible like their 'past selves' which can lead to slip-ups.

The key is not to cherry-pick but to be objective in analyzing past trends. So with Homestuck Mafia, one easy way to go about is to say "Who's acting differently D1 today than they acted D1 in that game, and why might they be acting differently today?" And, the logical corollary now that this has been announced: "Who's trying too hard to capture a similar pro-town vibe?"

This is why I'm against a Smarty lynch; he's more or less being the same Smarty he was D1 last game, and while it's possible that Smarty's just a very good Mafia player who plays the same kind of game regardless of alignment (again, researching other past games might give me a better indication of this) it's ALSO possible, even probable, that Smarty is just being Smarty and that going for the obvious lynch of Smarty because he's 'weird.'

The scum k now who each other are, they don't want information to be spread around the town- the more the town talks the more likely scum will be given away/incriminated. The problem last game was half the town not really playing- so there was little discussion and the scum had strong control of the vote.

This kind of logic is actually precisely why I'm most skeptical of those whose justifications for voting me (or Smarty, or possibly someone else) off simply boil down to: "I don't like him because he sounds too active and too serious and I dislike the nature of his serious activity."

That's classic anti-town, pro-scum logic. Scum wants to find ways to phrase their votes under a cloak of pro-town "why you bein' so wwweeeeiiirrrrddd" bullcrap when, in reality, they're gunning after active Townies who constitute the greatest 'threat' . There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a townie to suspect Smarty, or myself, or anyone else, but an illegitimate reason is simply "You're too serious bro, you're actually trying to win instead of having fun."

My guess is of the Scumteam, at least one Scum is being active and trying to push an agenda, possibly that agenda because, knowing that I'm Town (I have the benefit of knowing my Role) my guess is scum would really like me the hell out of this game.

But I also suspect at least one or two on the Scumteam are completely inactive and/or irrelevant-posting, because irrelevant, inconsequential "I'm here, not inactive, but not doing shit" posting by Scum in early days was also a classic NPF strategy for the Mafia team in D1 of Homestuck. Be on the lookout for those whose do post but whose posts have very little in the way of actual content. Like for example Nikose, who wasted an entire post of 'content' just speculating on the hypothetical that I might be Pinkie Pie. I'd feel more comfortable voting for him on that alone if not for the fact that Nikose, unfortunately enough, may just be being Nikose.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

The role call idea is terrible and should die quickly in a fire.

The 'random voting' D1 strategy didn't work in Homestuck Mafia, rarely works in most Mafia games, and won't work now. Again, Mafia has the advantage of knowing who is on the rest of their team and who isn't. It is very easy under the guise of 'random voting' for Mafiates to simply refuse to ever suspect each other and instead exclusively suspect town simply due to the statistical reality that there are considerably more town out there than scum. And it is notoriously easy for random voters to then chalk up their votes for random townies as "Well, that's what we do D1, we just toss around random votes like a chump and pray we hit something."

Random voting has worked fantastically well in about half the games I've played. You don't understnad how the random voting works- it's gotnothing to do with randomly hitting scum, its got to do with causing crap and getting people to make mistakes when you accuse them of shit. It basically getting everyone talking.

[QUOTE]
I can't possibly see how preventing that line of terrible logic from justifying scum's potential D1 actions . Personally, I'd much rather vote an inactive out simply for being inactive (or barely-active, barely-contributing) D1 than engage in a Random votefest, though the ideal option is to grill each other.


Do you knwo how you grill each other? You start by throwing random votes. There is currentely nothing to grill based on.
How do you grill with no information? We need information to flow. We need people to talk. We need to rile up inactives/low actives or ditch them.
You are talking nonsense- the very reason for random voting is to start grilling and activity.

[COLOR="Magenta"]Research past Mafia games (Homestuck was recent enough, admittingly the more distant the game the less likely the evidence is relevant.) Search for discrepancies in behavior or similar patterns of behavior.

We don't have a big backlog of games with most of the participants here. Not a valid strategy.
Like I played a lot and you are free to look at me.
Other players whoplayed a lot in the past I remember- Moogle, P-Sleazy, Hawk, Bard, Ryandermen- none of them have posted enough to really make pattern recognition. Exactly the problem we're trying to fix.

Fenris pulled this strategy off (as scum) in Homestuck Mafia but, newsflash, the reason Fenris pulled this off (as scum) in Homestuck is because it's usually a tried and true pro-town strategy, and his cherry-picking way of doing so helped him sound pro-town as hell. Furthermore, by announcing this strategy outright I'm going to now make Scum worry about sounding as much as possible like their 'past selves' which can lead to slip-ups.

Stop rewriting history. The reason it worked in Homestuck Mafia was because nobody was playing. There was like 6 active players and most of them were mafia. I woud like to prevent that again.

This is why I'm against a Smarty lynch; he's more or less being the same Smarty he was D1 last game, and while it's possible that Smarty's just a very good Mafia player who plays the same kind of game regardless of alignment (again, researching other past games might give me a better indication of this) it's ALSO possible, even probable, that Smarty is just being Smarty and that going for the obvious lynch of Smarty because he's 'weird.'

I don't see how I'm acting "weird". Nobody has given a good reason for bandwagoning me- the bandwagon is just a random bandwagon.

[COLOR="Magenta"]This kind of logic is actually precisely why I'm most skeptical of those whose justifications for voting me (or Smarty, or possibly someone else) off simply boil down to: "I don't like him because he sounds too active and too serious and I dislike the nature of his serious activity."

Yes active players are good. We like active players. Inactive players you never really get information on. So when we have no information at all and no better votes we should vote inactive. I'm not saying right away bandwagon them- what I'ms aying is if deadline approaches and we have no suspicion on anyone bandwagon an inactive.

That's classic anti-town, pro-scum logic. Scum wants to find ways to phrase their votes under a cloak of pro-town "why you bein' so wwweeeeiiirrrrddd" bullcrap when, in reality, they're gunning after active Townies who constitute the greatest 'threat' . There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a townie to suspect Smarty, or myself, or anyone else, but an illegitimate reason is simply "You're too serious bro, you're actually trying to win instead of having fun."

Did you even read my post? I'msaying we SHOULDN'T vote out talkers- we should vote out the silent.
Like I don't even know what you are arguing anymore.
I'm so confused Snake- you've quoted me on mass and are calling me out for trying to vote out active players when I'm advocating precisely the opposite.
Snake you are trying to mislead the town and convince them I'm arguing the opposite of what I'm arguing. I don't know why, it's a bizarre tactic for a scum to pull.
Like I don'tknow what you're smoking but I want some.


But really Snake, you are not helping. All you are doing is scaring people into not posting. You are doing precisely the opposite of what we need on day 1. You are adopting ahigh ground position of "super-mafia player" but you are spouting bullshit which only would be useful if you were playing with a very specific set of highly active players playing to very specific codes of conduct.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Did you even read my post? I'msaying we SHOULDN'T vote out talkers- we should vote out the silent.
Like I don't even know what you are arguing anymore.
I'm so confused Snake- you've quoted me on mass and are calling me out for trying to vote out active players when I'm advocating precisely the opposite.
Snake you are trying to mislead the town and convince them I'm arguing the opposite of what I'm arguing. I don't know why, it's a bizarre tactic for a scum to pull.
Like I don'tknow what you're smoking but I want some.

Uh, Smarty, I wasn't actually responding to you specifically there.
That entire point you thought was specifically directed at you was in fact, not directed at you at all.
Which really invalidates like, 80% of the basis for the muckraking you're attempting there.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Uh, Smarty, I wasn't actually responding to you specifically there.
That entire point you thought was specifically directed at you was in fact, not directed at you at all.
Which really invalidates like, 80% of the basis for the muckraking you're attempting there.

You sprinkled your posts with quotes from me and then responded to them! How is that not responding to me?

[Sifright]

Personally I think if we did a full role call it would work pretty well but thats risky.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

How exactly would the role call work anyway? People just go "hey guys I'm totally X and I have X special ability"? Cos I don't see how that works when people can just start making up roles and we have no way to verify their claims. And even if someone is telling the truth, how do we know? All it will do is sow more confusion and allows the scum to find out who might be decent targets to kill off. I guess that's the "risky" part of the plan, but I don't see how it can help us.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I had a rolecall once in a game, it pretty much just singled out the town's power and lead to easy mafia victory.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Yeah, I thought as much. Let's not do that.

EDIT; In fact, now that I think about it, it's a REALLY stupid idea, so

Unvote: Bard

Vote: rpgdemon

For having the idea in the first place.

[Aldurin]

We shouldn't do a role call because the scum would probably claim to be normal townies (and use obscure names from the show), then they'd know who were the important roles and we'd be more or less screwed.