GoT Mafia Game 70

[Lady Gaga]

ME HAS A PLAN!

Seeing as we have to cooperate in order to catch the FM, I've figured out a combination of roles that could lead us straight to a killer, and even kill him instantly if we guess correctly!

So. Player A is widely trusted. It's really important that it's the most trustworthy player we can find, as the whole plan depends on certainty of him telling the truth. Player B is the most suspicious person left after today's lynch. Player A buys a vig kill and announces on-thread that he will target player B. Player B, if innocent, can buy a guard and guard player A, but if guilty, he can't use any role until he's the last killer remaining! This also prevents the FM from interfering with our little experiment in order to sow confusion. Note that we must choose players A and B so that there is absolutely NO chance of them being partners.

So, the gain of my plan is basically a find which kills if the subject is guilty, which is pretty damn awesome, and the drawbacks are that we won't know for certain that player A is trustworthy, and he must be willing to spend 4 points on a vig kill.

We also need a fairly trusted player C to buy a heal for Player A, or all we do is ensure that for one night only, player A is a risk free kill. That or loads of us heal him, and waste a huge cache of points.

Added to that, we're relying on Mr. A to have the 4 points in the first place, and Mr. B to have enough to guard himself. Worst still, one misjudgement and we could give the killers a route to CI either one (if Mr. A is evil) or two (if both are evil) killers.

I can;'t see myself trusting anyone enough to be Mr. C, let alone Mr. A.

[House Stokeworth]

We also need a fairly trusted player C to buy a heal for Player A, or all we do is ensure that for one night only, player A is a risk free kill. That or loads of us heal him, and waste a huge cache of points.

Added to that, we're relying on Mr. A to have the 4 points in the first place, and Mr. B to have enough to guard himself. Worst still, one misjudgement and we could give the killers a route to CI either one (if Mr. A is evil) or two (if both are evil) killers.

I can;'t see myself trusting anyone enough to be Mr. C, let alone Mr. A.

No, we wouldn't need player C. Basically, we don't care what happens to player A. Basically all the kills are risk-free, as I don't think any one would lose their points right now to heal their *opponents*. However, it wouln't be wise for the FM to kill him, as at that point, he's persumably used up all of his points, and they'd be better off going after someone with whom more points may die.

[House Thorne]

:angry:

I knew I wouldn't enjoy this set-up much.

[Lady Gaga]

No, we wouldn't need player C. Basically, we don't care what happens to player A. Basically all the kills are risk-free, as I don't think any one would lose their points right now to heal their *opponents*. However, it wouln't be wise for the FM to kill him, as at that point, he's persumably used up all of his points, and they'd be better off going after someone with whom more points may die.

Actually, this requires Mr. A accepting a death rather than just buying a shield for the night.

In fact, he could shield himself for 5 nights for the price of that guaranteed death to help the rest of you.

You can do it if you like, and if it kills a killer fantastic. However if it "CIs someone" I'll be pretty suspicious and wonder if it's a set up.

Further, do we know if a vig kill happens before the killers kill, at the same time, or after it? For all we know the killers killing Mr. A would stop him from acting at all?

[House Corbray]

ME HAS A PLAN!

Seeing as we have to cooperate in order to catch the FM, I've figured out a combination of roles that could lead us straight to a killer, and even kill him instantly if we guess correctly!

So. Player A is widely trusted. It's really important that it's the most trustworthy player we can find, as the whole plan depends on certainty of him telling the truth. Player B is the most suspicious person left after today's lynch. Player A buys a vig kill and announces on-thread that he will target player B. Player B, if innocent, can buy a guard and guard player A, but if guilty, he can't use any role until he's the last killer remaining! This also prevents the FM from interfering with our little experiment in order to sow confusion. Note that we must choose players A and B so that there is absolutely NO chance of them being partners.

So, the gain of my plan is basically a find which kills if the subject is guilty, which is pretty damn awesome, and the drawbacks are that we won't know for certain that player A is trustworthy, and he must be willing to spend 4 points on a vig kill.

I think Cerwyn's right. It looks nice on paper, but I'm dubious that you'll ever get something like this on it's feet. Mafia isn't a game filled with trusting souls.

I'm having a read through yesterday, at the moment, to see what I make of Cerwyn's Dondarrion, Kenning, Stark trifecta. I'll comment on it once I've checked it all out.

[House Stokeworth]

Actually, this requires Mr. A accepting a death rather than just buying a shield for the night.

In fact, he could shield himself for 5 nights for the price of that guaranteed death to help the rest of you.

Shield himself for 5 nights? You lost me.

Plus, why would this mean that player A would necessarily be killed? He could only be killed because he's trusted, but that's a risk he would have to go with anyway, seeing that it's the reason we chose him, and OTOH he's a suboptimal kill because he's wasted most of his points on the vig kill.

You can do it if you like, and if it kills a killer fantastic. However if it "CIs someone" I'll be pretty suspicious and wonder if it's a set up.

Further, do we know if a vig kill happens before the killers kill, at the same time, or after it? For all we know the killers killing Mr. A would stop him from acting at all?

All kills happen at the same time. It's always been a Mafia rule, so I'm not sure what you're trying to do.

[House Connington]

Either the mods didn't post a vote count at the end of the day or I missed it. So I'm going to post one, for future reference.

8 votes are needed for a conviction or 7 to go to night.

8 votes for Keffer Botley (Amanda Frey, Ronald Kenning, Rupert Martell, Stevie Yronwood, Eadweard Dondarrion, Francesca Cerwyn, Victor Erenford, Jez Tyrell)

2 votes for Gareth Stark (Keffer Botley, Rose Tully)

1 vote for Stevie Yronwood (Gareth Stark)

1 vote for Rupert Martell (Veronica Lannister)

1 vote for Veronica Lannister (Thomas Hunt Stonetree)

1 vote for Victor Erenford (Siobhan Stokeworth)

Anybody think that the FM have a motivation to not vote for innocents, especially once they see the momentum going against one? If there were 14 of us, it takes 8 to lynch, and the ball is rolling against an innocent, the FM would prefer to have those 8 spots filled up by innocent players who could then not get a point (for not lynching an innocent). And on the reverse, at least some of the 6 points going to people who were able to stay off the mob would go to FM instead of innocents.

The problem with this theory is the question of opportunity, because not everyone is always around to even have a chance to vote. And I'm not sure how it weighs against them wanting to get a lynch and wanting to blend in. But still its something to think about.

[House Corbray]

So from this, I'd say Dondarrion looks bad. Kenning looks worse. Stark is still my main choice for the day, but I'd say Kenning is my current #2, and Dondarrion my #3. I don't have any reason yet to believe that they aren't all evil.

ps. If we find out that they are the killers, you ALL owe me a drink over in Spoiler Heaven. :cheers:

I've read through from the start of the more serious conversation, and I think your analysis is essentially solid. Kenning, in particular, seems to have played a key role in moving things away from Stark. I do think you need to be careful in letting people go just because they didn't push away from Stark hard. So, yes, Dondarrion and Kenning, but also Martell. He left himself open to voting Stark, but ultimately didn't, the rest could just be distancing.

Anybody think that the FM have a motivation to not vote for innocents, especially once they see the momentum going against one? If there were 14 of us, it takes 8 to lynch, and the ball is rolling against an innocent, the FM would prefer to have those 8 spots filled up by innocent players who could then not get a point (for not lynching an innocent). And on the reverse, at least some of the 6 points going to people who were able to stay off the mob would go to FM instead of innocents.

The problem with this theory is the question of opportunity, because not everyone is always around to even have a chance to vote. And I'm not sure how it weighs against them wanting to get a lynch and wanting to blend in. But still its something to think about.

I really don't know how far to consider the points in looking at people's likely actions. I know I talked about them a bit with regard to Erenford, but I suspect that evil's top priorities will be the same as usual: stay alive, get innocents lynched, kill folks messily. I imagine that point considerations will be a distant second to all of this. Either way, I don't think we can make a solid enough assumption to do any real analysis.

[House Velaryon]

Your own contribution I'm afraid I still find pretty inane. You vote Botley saying you have no read on him, but you made a point against him a few posts ago (which was merely parroting Frey and Kenning...). You then tell Martell you'd rather he voted for me (maybe it's you who wants that point lead ;-)), but quickly change your vote to Botley.

I can notice game play I don't like (Botley) while still having no read on them (guilty/innocent). Botely was pretty neutral on that scale, thus a better lynch from my perspective. And if by 'quickly changed my vote' you mean 3 hours and no support later right before I left for the night, then yeah. It was 'quickly'.

I don't have much time now, so two things I want to bring up. There has been talk about FM wanting points, and whoever said they would rather focus on denying innocent points is dead on. People like Erenford who were pushing a very viable lynch (me) with a first vote or positioning for the hammer are going to gain some suspicion from me. I know innocents want points too, so it's not a sure thing, but something to add in the equation. Laying a vote and not budging it is not denying a point for anyone else, so is a less suspicious form of point gathering in my eyes.

Second, I want to look at Dondarrion a bit more. Out of 3 votes he really thought that 2 might already be on the mob. It's possible, but not very likely I think - would be less flexible. I don't know how strongly he thought this, but it was a strong deflection from Stark and an attempt to focus attention on a small pool of players.

(Yes, Erenford, these points have been brought up before. Polly want a cracker?)

[House Mooton]

Now I mostly suspect Tyrell, for suggesting a plan able to waste all our points into a shower, Cerwyn for being tunnel-visioned on Stark and Martell for discussing setup witout suggesting a candidancy for next lynch.

I'll vote before leaving.

[House Connington]

Going to start with a look at the end of the day and then move on to day 2.

I'd like to have a look at the people on Starks lynch mob, because if he's innocent we might find a couple of FM in there. It is a case based on very little that has gained momentum and it doesn't sit well with me.

As Cerwyn mentioned, Dondarrion does stand out as suspicious, if Stark is evil. Looks like he was discouraging votes for Stark.

I think I have all the arguments sorted out now, and Stark comes out looking vaguely suspicious, but there are a few things that I find inconsistent with how a FM might behave. On top of that, I find Botley more and more suspicious even though I don't like the term "chainsaw" either.

Kenning, what are the things about Stark that you find inconsistent with FM behavior?

I'm not being tunnel visioned, but when all posts are by stark or based on what stark's doing, I've not got a great deal to go on. :-p

Cerwyn, I'm curious why (near the end of day 1) you didn't comment on Erenford and how he popped in, but failed to say anything substantial about your argument with Stark.

I tend to trust you so far, but my biggest problem with you is that you spent all of day 1 obsessed with Stark, missing things like the Erenford concern. Also, I'm put off by your tendency to overexplain things, but still deciding if that's just a personality trait or a sign of nervousness.

It's possible. Both Fracesca and Botley have come into the game late and focused completely on Stark, which is interesting. They have essentially arrived and proceeded to steer a lynch in his direction.

As I stated earlier, the FM are probably supporting each other atm to reduce the player pool so I still think its useful to look for links and Frankie and Botley share similarities, both in their lateness to the game and their choice of target. Could they have been late because they were talking strategy elsewhere and why are both so fixed on Stark?

I'm inclined to go with Botley, who is more suspicious to me than Stark or Erenford.

This point makes no sense, and just looks like an excuse to vote Botley. Another strike against Dondarrion.

[House Connington]

Now I mostly suspect Tyrell, for suggesting a plan able to waste all our points into a shower, Cerwyn for being tunnel-visioned on Stark and Martell for discussing setup witout suggesting a candidancy for next lynch.

I'm working on it, sweetheart. Posts take a while to write. :kiss:

By the way, I have a question for you.

Sorry for another long absence, I was afflicted by other debts.

I miss my points but am glad you haven't lynched Erenford, I feel much better about him now. Waing for analysis he promiced.

Why do you feel better about Erenford? You threw the vague comment out there but gave no specific reason.

[Lady Gaga]

Cerwyn, I'm curious why (near the end of day 1) you didn't comment on Erenford and how he popped in, but failed to say anything substantial about your argument with Stark.

I tend to trust you so far, but my biggest problem with you is that you spent all of day 1 obsessed with Stark, missing things like the Erenford concern. Also, I'm put off by your tendency to overexplain things, but still deciding if that's just a personality trait or a sign of nervousness.

Firstly, better to over explain than under explain. :smoking:

Secondly, unless I'm thinking of a different Erenford post than you, he comes in and explains his problems with Botley, and why he'll hammer him. This is past the point that there's a realistic lynch elsewhere, so I didn't read too much into it. Beyond that, he does comment on my argument with Stark. He feels the problems with Stark's posting are flu-related, and is giving him a pass because of that. I feel that's a substantial opinion, albeit one I disagree with. So, nothing really noteworthy there for me to pick up on.

And yes, I do seem to be tunnelled on Stark, but that's because he has displayed a plethora of scummy actions. He has a decent mound of evidence piling up on him for this early in the day, from the vote being actively swung away from him, to the night kill protecting him, and everything he said. Plenty of what he said that's showing him to be scum is a direct result of me hounding the hound. Why would I ease up and start looking elsewhere, when this line of enquiry is bearing plenty of fruit? If I decide to look at things with the idea that Stark is innocent, I have very little evidence on anyone, and even on re-read can't pick up that much in the way of damning evidence.

Of course, Donny and Kenny could be bad even with Stark being good. I mean, if one innocent is clearly target #1, then shifting the mob onto a second innocent would be a smart play, as it leaves the original target #1 as the focus for day 2.

Especially if you kill someone who suspects them.

Gah. I'm not WIFOMing my way to an innocent Stark! :-p

[House Stokeworth]

Ok, I have another plan, since people seem to dislike my first one.

There will be 11 of us tonight. We'll split into 5 healing pairs, and one player will protect himself. If anyone dies, that means his healing partner is an FM. This plan, although it takes far less points (one a player), requires full cooperation.

I really feel we should take advantage of the game mechanics.

[House Connington]

Firstly, better to over explain than under explain. :smoking:

Secondly, unless I'm thinking of a different Erenford post than you, he comes in and explains his problems with Botley, and why he'll hammer him. This is past the point that there's a realistic lynch elsewhere, so I didn't read too much into it. Beyond that, he does comment on my argument with Stark. He feels the problems with Stark's posting are flu-related, and is giving him a pass because of that. I feel that's a substantial opinion, albeit one I disagree with. So, nothing really noteworthy there for me to pick up on.

We're thinking of different posts. I'm talking about Erenford's post that came in the middle of your back and forth with Stark. This one:

It's pretty inane, yeah, though analytical and self-pretentious might be over-doing it.

Since, as the extremely appropriately named Francesca Cerwyn points out, there are no symps in this game, you can't be my symp, but I'll accept you as my replaceable henchman.

So anyway, lets keep piling those votes on Yronwood!

You may accuse him of something else, Stark, but without the excess of adjectives.

*goes back to his comfy armchair and scratches Mr. Bigglesworth's tummy*

[House Stokeworth]

At this point, a Stark lynch would give us the most information, and he's my top suspect anyway. However, I won't vote him yet, as there is plenty time until the end of the day, and I'm hunting for points. :P

[Lady Gaga]

We're thinking of different posts. I'm talking about Erenford's post that came in the middle of your back and forth with Stark. This one:

Ah, I took that to be a transition between serious and joke phase post. At that time there wasn't a great deal to say, and what needed to be said to stark, I was already saying, so yeah. I don't consider that a notable post either way. Do you? And why? What's remarkable about it?

[Lady Gaga]

Ok, I have another plan, since people seem to dislike my first one.

There will be 11 of us tonight. We'll split into 5 healing pairs, and one player will protect himself. If anyone dies, that means his healing partner is an FM. This plan, although it takes far less points (one a player), requires full cooperation.

I really feel we should take advantage of the game mechanics.

This could work, if we all agreed. But who would set the pairs? And who would be left out, and why?

[House Stokeworth]

This could work, if we all agreed. But who would set the pairs? And who would be left out, and why?

Anyone could set the pairs, it's not important. Even if the FM end up together, we would either have a no kill night, or a proven FM in the morning.

I believe we should leave out the top suspect after the lynch, the person with most votes after the lynchee.

We'd have to agree on this plan soon, in order to give everyone time to send in their heal.

[House Mooton]

Why do you feel better about Erenford? You threw the vague comment out there but gave no specific reason.

Case about Erenford was that he avoided giving opinions about players but chose safe topics to discuss. Later on day 1, he gave us opinions and very non-popular ones (such as accusing Tully). He promiced to expand those suspicions today; unless he will fail, I want to trust him. I almost always trust players who go against the tide.