Yume Nikki Mafia - Waking 2

[Pesco]

Response to Rou: Has anyone that's not-Wrathie ever rationalised why he self-votes?

@ Baity: You don't like Affinity's vote I take it?

[LHCling]

Rou: What risk? We take a risk every time we make a lynch, this isn't new. Scum have every bit as much an opening to screw things up if we lynch a single person as well. We also have an opportunity to screw scum every time we lynch!

We have a better chance of killing scum, right now, if we pull this out. It's basically.. slightly less than double the chance if we go after two, I'll grant, but the odds are increased significantly and it's actually good for us if scum feel compelled to do something crazy towards deadline to save themselves.

I am actually rereading your stuff, and a bit confused. I'm wanting to lynch 2-3 people. Either's good in my book, not too fussed over which. Are you pro-multilynch, anti-multilynch, or what?

At this point, I'd say I would be "anti-multi-lynch". It's a matter of Risk vs. Reward.

At best, townies outnumber scum by a large degree. Vice versa is worst (obviously).

By doing a multi-lynch of a large degree (e.g. 6), all it would probably do is bring the end game closer. This obviously has its advantages and disadvantages.

@ Baity: You don't like Affinity's vote I take it?

It's tipped my suspicion a bit. The only thing I'm being paranoid about is my pathetic excuse of an example.

---

And if you don't believe what I'm saying now (and that I'm protecting Edible for instance), check the signup thread. Now check the start of this thread.

They're exactly the same; it's a list in chronological order of the people who signed up.

[LHCling]

EBWOP: (very accident prone here)

At this point, I'd say I would be "anti-multi-lynch". It's a matter of Risk vs. Reward.

At best, townies outnumber scum by a large degree. Vice versa is worst (obviously). [Should mass-lynch be opted.]

[FinnKaenbyou]

Rou: What risk? We take a risk every time we make a lynch, this isn't new. Scum have every bit as much an opening to screw things up if we lynch a single person as well. We also have an opportunity to screw scum every time we lynch!

Okay, apparently I need to restate my opinion AGAIN.
If town, as a majority, can decide on two players who should be lynched and focus their votes between these players equally (say, 6/6), scum has no opportunity of preventing these lynches. Any other situation gives the informed minority a chance to decide who dies on D1, and I don't like the idea of that.

For the record, I'm pro-doublelynch, anti-singlelynch (this is indeed an opportunity to eliminate two suspects at once and should be embraced) and anti-triplelynch and above.

Response to Rou: Has anyone that's not-Wrathie ever rationalised why he self-votes?

You just told me that Baity knew what he was doing with this. Surely you can come up with some sort of constructive reason as to why this would help him out if he was scum?

That said, Baity's responses are filled with more waffles than breakfast. As a word of advice, don't answer questions aimed at other people - let them defend themselves since otherwise it's a judgement of your character instead of theirs.
Would like to see him produce something coherent in his defense.

[Kanako Yasaka]

I'm going to go ahead and agree with rou.


-It's too great of an oppurtunity for a single lynch.

-Double lynch would be wonderful, town would divide up their votes equally and if someone last minute unvotes then it's fairly obvious what their alignment would be. Even if we lose the two most suspicious townies (worst case scenario) we won't have to risk having them in LYLO.

->2 lynches is far too dangerous. That's all I have to say about that. I'd rather play it safe than gamble and potentially lose everything. :|

So yes, I'm pro-doublelynch as well.

As for baity, what exactly are you trying to "work out"? Just curious.

For now, I'm assuming that Baity's role is a bomb. A bomb. Dammit.



Disclaimer: This post/this disclaimer may make little to no sense as I literally just woke up.

[Pesco]

Rou, RTFT. If you claimed to be illiterate because you live in an African country, I would have believed you. Why would scum vote themselves? Because you would give them a free pass for it.

Let me run some figures for multi-lynching:
Assume 3 scum, 10 town
If everyone is voting at day end in 6:6:1, 3 lynches.
In 6:6:0, 2 vote jumps will secure single lynch.
If the day ends with multiple wagons on the same number of votes, vote switching will still give us double-lynch at least (assuming small jumps).
Scum do have the numbers to influence multi-lynching, but at great cost to themselves. This is no different from normal voting.

Now can we not speculate about things that detract from actual scumhunting.

[Nietz]

Also, hypothetical Question: If one person has 4 votes, and two people have 3 votes each, who dies in this scenerio?

Three people in this case. Should it be the opposite (two people with 4, one or more with three) only the top two.

Also, to clarify: If everyone dies together then everyone loses. Bad End.

---

Vote count

pesco47 (2): Edible, Kiro
Roukanken (1): Serpentarius
Alice (1): Zakeri, Affinity
Kanguya Yaraisan (1): UncertainKitten
Serpentarius (1): Mr. Alert
Affinity (0): BaitySM
Zakeri (1): Alice
UncertainKitten (0): pesco47
BaitySM (3): pesco47, BaitySM, Affinity

Not voting: Carthrat ,Roukanken, KY

A little more than 60 hours remaining.

[Affinity]

@Baity

Since when did I ever think that voting for myself is townie? Granted, my current play-style is being perceived to be very awkward (probably even; dare I say "foreign"), but I'm trying to work something out.

Then why did you vote yourself?  From what I see, your line of reasoning is that you excluded yourself from your RNG, so you think that people think you're scummy, and then you voted yourself to show that you're willing to do so if the RNG says so, e.g

Regardless, before anybody else decides to stack votes on me simply because of what I presume to be from this single line:

After that you self-voted.  It flows logically, but in a very horrible way since the premises are wrong.

It's tipped my suspicion a bit. The only thing I'm being paranoid about is my pathetic excuse of an example.

What would I be scummy for, pray tell?  You voted yourself to improve your self-image, from what I understand; and doing that just because pesco voted you and said "FMPH" is blah.  What's to explain that other than paranoia?

---

@Roukanken

Affinity's post of 'facts facts facts Vote Baity' doesn't feel very useful, either

Facts are facts.  I pointed them out.  What is the issue here?

---

Multi-lynch, in my opinion, is good.  Mafia is all about bandwagon analysis and, logically, the more bandwagons and flips to analyze, the better, as long as it doesn't detriment town too much. 

Lastly, votecounts have to be around more often.  At least 3 per page.

[Pesco]

UK's vote is worth nothing?

[Nietz]

UK's vote is worth nothing?

Whoops, fixed that.
Also, I hoped Jan would be around to votecount while I was asleep.

[Pesco]

Whoops, fixed that.
Also, I hoped Jan would be around to votecount while I was asleep.

Lol. Forgot to profile your co-mod's timezone?

[Serp]

Also, hypothetical Question: If one person has 4 votes, and two people have 3 votes each, who dies in this scenerio?

Three people in this case. Should it be the opposite (two people with 4, one or more with three) only the top two.

So, Pesco, this isn't true:

If everyone is voting at day end in 6:6:1, 3 lynches.

To get three lynches, we need one person ahead, and two people tied for second.  I'm tempted to go for it.  If there were a scum among the two tied players, his buddies could save him pretty easily, but they'd look pretty suspicious in doing so.  The only factor holding me back is that I'm not confident we can pull it off without having some townies screw up, make one of the accused look scummy, and make themselves look scummy too, sending us off on a wild goose chase while the scum laugh at us behind our backs.  So, put me down as tentatively pro-double lynch.

Anyway, BaitySM is pretty ridiculous, but the way that he suddenly dropped his Affinity vote like it was hot strikes me as weird.

##Unvote
##Vote Affinity

Whew.  Didn't take long for this game to get serious.

[Pesco]

I ninja Kiro's post

@ Serp: You suspect bussing already?

[Kiro]

I'm for a double lynch. We could try a triple lynch, but per Nietz's explanation, it's slightly finicky. I say don't force a triple lynch unless it starts to come naturally by the end of the Day.

The whole damn thing about RNG is for a random vote. I don't give a damn if Baity wants to exclude himself in a random vote or accidentally exclude someone else.

His bringing up of a hypothetical, "what if I want more votes on me" is bleh. Don't introduce WIFOMs. Then you adding onto that with your reply in #57 saying that you "messed up something fundamental" is going to get you into trouble. The dice thing is not a crime for RVS (random voting stage). But your slight overreaction and hypothetical situation is something of significance.

...the chance that the entire scumteam is going to fail fundamental probability involving dice would be pretty damn low.

What does that have to do with anything? As far as when Scum can communicate, Rule #5 states that it's based on your role PM. So we cannot easily assume that Scum can talk during the Day like in the last game. I realize that this was in response to Rou's question so this point also applies to Rou in assuming that Scum can Daytalk. Minor, but currently inconclusive scumtell that I'd like to point out for posterity.

KY: Scumhunt and vote please. This is what got you into trouble last game.

Would like to see Baity unvote himself and whatever new case he wishes to pursue. I'll be out all of today, can check back late tonight.

[Serp]

@ Serp: You suspect bussing already?

Most of the votes placed in the random voting phase tend to get switched around pretty quickly.  It seems like a fittingly newbie move to put an apparently random vote on a fellow scum, intending to switch as soon as a good bandwagon comes up, but then panic when you get called on it.

[Pesco]

That kinda fails since he's voting himself right now. What supports your theory is his reluctance to revote Affinity, which isn't particularly great for consideration right now.

Baity is going to have a lot to answer to when he gets back on. Where would Baity like to place his vote? I'd like to hear an answer for when this post was made and another answer for when he's back up to date with the game.

[FinnKaenbyou]

Why would scum vote themselves? Because you would give them a free pass for it.

So suddenly MY opinion alone is worth taking this sort of obscene risk for? I'm not buying it - I mean, it certainly raised the suspicion of other people, so saying he's doing it to earn a free pass makes no sense.

If everyone is voting at day end in 6:6:1, 3 lynches.

As Serp has already pointed out, this is wrong.

In 6:6:0, 2 vote jumps will secure single lynch.

Meaning we most likely have our three scum - the two jumpers and whoever they were protecting.

If the day ends with multiple wagons on the same number of votes, vote switching will still give us double-lynch at least (assuming small jumps).

You do realise this plan revolves around having several solid cases on several players on D1, right? That's asking for quite a lot.

Facts are facts.  I pointed them out.  What is the issue here?

The fact that you didn't really contribute anything new to the discussion is what irritated me.

Still waiting on something useful from Baity.

[Pesco]

Still waiting for some useful scumhunting from Rou.

[FinnKaenbyou]

Still waiting for some useful scumhunting from Rou.

So raising the point that Affinity was performing IIoA doesn't qualify as scumhunting? Or indeed my entire point against you, which you haven't argued against and have instead chosen to ignore?
Also, I think I'm the only person to raise the point that Baity was answering other people's questions for them.

Raising the question again since you didn't answer it - why would Baity go to such extreme lengths to get a free pass from one player?

I'd like to think I've done more hunting than Pesco, who to date has offered very little other than his 'OMFG 2D6 BAITY IS OBVSCUM, SELF-VOTING FOR PITY' argument. No objections to keeping my vote where it is right now.

[FinnKaenbyou]

EBWOP: Alice, Kanako, I can see both of you online right now. Why not contribute something to the discussion?

[FinnKaenbyou]

EBWOP: Nearly missed Mr. Alert at the end of the list. >_>

[Pesco]

Lol dude.

Kindly recite the town win condition for me? I'm quite sure it does not include Pesco dying as a requisite.

[Nietz]

Vote count:

pesco47 (2): Edible, Kiro
Roukanken (0): Serpentarius
Alice (1): Zakeri, Affinity
Kanguya Yaraisan (1): UncertainKitten
Serpentarius (1): Mr. Alert
Affinity (1): BaitySM, Serpentarius
Zakeri (1): Alice
UncertainKitten (0): pesco47
BaitySM (3): pesco47, BaitySM, Affinity

Not voting: Carthrat, Roukanken, KY

55 hours remaining.

[Kanako Yasaka]

I honestly have nothing to say.

I don't know what to make of the whole Baity situation so I'm just quietly waiting for another development to pop up. Affinity is possibly exploiting Baity's self-vote in an attempt to get Baity more paranoid and send him on his way to a lynch. One of many possibilities, I guess.

If I had to vote, I would go with Affinity.

[Pesco]

I honestly have nothing to say.

I don't know what to make of the whole Baity situation so I'm just quietly waiting for another development to pop up. Affinity is possibly exploiting Baity's self-vote in an attempt to get Baity more paranoid and send him on his way to a lynch. One of many possibilities, I guess.

If I had to vote, I would go with Affinity.

Umm... You kinda do have to vote for us to take you for being remotely interested in the going ons of the day.

Even if you have nothing to say about Baity or Affinity, there are 10 players that you can talk about. People that you can definitely say stuff on: Carthrat, me, Rou, Serp and maybe Kiro.

[Kanako Yasaka]

Fair enough, ##Vote: Affinity because it's much better than anything else I have at the moment.

And now a user analysis post.

Rat: Just things related to the setup. ...and that's it! I can't really judge right now.

Serp: Very good points about Baity/Affinity. From what I've seen, probably town. Then again this is just from what I've seen on early day one.

Affinity: Like I said before, he could be intimidating baity in an attempt to make him more paranoid than he already is. He looks the scummiest to me right now. Also, IIoA.

Pesco: Messup regarding the setup, I don't see why anyone should hold that against you though. You have done less then Rou and you have ignored his questions. Even in your most recent post, you still didn't address them. This could be a cause for concern.

Rou: Nice points on Pesco. Looking very town, for now. You've been actively scumhunting and you have just been doing a nice job all around.

[Pesco]

Rou must be really Parsee of the intimacy between me and Kiro from the other game.

Okay, firstly obligatory response to today's Dream Rules.

In short, we're begging for disaster on this setup. The only legitimate way to earn multiple lynches here is for two VERY CLEAR majorities at deadline, otherwise we're giving scum far too many chances to screw things up with a last-minute vote change. The only way anything involving multiple majorities will work is if everyone being lynched is Town, and even if we hit one scum with three lynches, adding the NK we still lose three Townies for one scum. (The odds of us hitting two scum in three lynches on D1 are pretty much zero, before anyone tries to argue otherwise.)

This stuff is not obligatory to post and you're a real pessimist about the capabilities of the players. This is a normal game of mafia, with day 1 requiring more votes than usual for majority. That is all.

As for the BaitySM debate, the self-vote is just plain dumb, in all honesty. What's sad is that it's DELIBERATE -

...If you're actually a PR, I think I'm going to cry. Don't see what scum could gain from this, though.

Waffle.

More interesting to me is Pesco's misrep of what seems to be a simple misunderstanding of the probabilities of 2d6:- No, he was excluding one player: Edible (1). Don't even TRY to argue that he should have left the self-vote possibility open.
- In terms of the probability ignorance, realise that this scum plan you're suggesting only works in one highly unlikely situation - the scum players are all near the top or bottom of the list, thus the 2d6 roll will probably (or in one case, definitely) miss them. The odds of this are also pretty small.
- There's also the point that, well, using a 2d6 for a random vote is OBVIOUSLY going to get called out for being stupid. Either the entire scumteam has no idea how probabilities work, or Baity just made a mistake. Indeed, if he'd never said 'I'm using 2d6' his random vote would've received no further thought, so why would he mention it if he knew it was a bad idea?

Feels like Pesco's taking advantage of the new guy, as usual, and he's screwing with words and odds in order to make what looks like a simple mistake metamorphose into a scumtell. Affinity's post of 'facts facts facts Vote Baity' doesn't feel very useful, either, but Pesco still wins out.

First, my vote reason was FPMH. No mention of dice or probability, the misrep is what you've done. Second, what are you defending Baity so strongly for? How are you so assured of him being town already?

Alright, let me flip the question on its head. If Baity does know what he's doing with this 'plan' you've concocted, explain to me what it's actually meant to do. As far as I see this plan can be defined as 'Okay, one of us votes using a 2d6 and gets caught being an idiot, then selfvotes to confuse Town'. Doesn't sound brilliant to me.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm Pesco, not Baity. Just like I don't know why you are giving 11 players free passes, I don't know what he wants to do.

Okay, you honestly think removing the possibility of voting yourself counts as excluding a player? Please excuse me while I slam my forehead into a wall.

Silly point about RVS methods. Irrelevant and DISTRACTING to REAL scumhunting.

You just told me that Baity knew what he was doing with this. Surely you can come up with some sort of constructive reason as to why this would help him out if he was scum?

I'm sure Baity knew what he was getting himself into. Newbness is no indication for clearing players (ref Edible and FAV).

Not the same as knowing what he was doing. Either your misreping or your reading fails.

So suddenly MY opinion alone is worth taking this sort of obscene risk for? I'm not buying it - I mean, it certainly raised the suspicion of other people, so saying he's doing it to earn a free pass makes no sense.

Your opinion is worth 1 vote, that means it's worthwhile for anyone to swing it to their favour.

As Serp has already pointed out, this is wrong.
Meaning we most likely have our three scum - the two jumpers and whoever they were protecting.
You do realise this plan revolves around having several solid cases on several players on D1, right? That's asking for quite a lot.

You want to know when mod-clarification was made? Right after my post.

Responding to you anymore is just a matter of who is right or wrong. Get over it and scumhunt properly if you can at all.

[Pesco]

Fair enough, ##Vote: Affinity because it's much better than anything else I have at the moment.

And now a user analysis post.

Rat: Just things related to the setup. ...and that's it! I can't really judge right now.

Serp: Very good points about Baity/Affinity. From what I've seen, probably town. Then again this is just from what I've seen on early day one.

Affinity: Like I said before, he could be intimidating baity in an attempt to make him more paranoid than he already is. He looks the scummiest to me right now. Also, IIoA.

Pesco: Messup regarding the setup, I don't see why anyone should hold that against you though. You have done less then Rou and you have ignored his questions. Even in your most recent post, you still didn't address them. This could be a cause for concern.

Rou: Nice points on Pesco. Looking very town, for now. You've been actively scumhunting and you have just been doing a nice job all around.

You can do better than that. Put some backbone into it.

[UncertainJakutten]

stop WoTing

Pah, that was a fence of text. Hardly even a cobblestone barrier for gardens. Granted, Vincent in Dirge of Cerberus couldn't jump it in game, but still!

Kiro appears to be exempt from vote explanations

Carth wins with his first post on page 2. His second post outlines the problems. Good job

Pesco also appears to be exempt. Must be nice.

Pesco appears to also be restating things already said. Not sure I like that

Now Pesco gets original. Lynch half the town. However, if we completely fuck it up it's possible that makes us lose

Zakeri is no fun. Further, I find it odd that he feels the need to limit the number of lynches we do today. Why not just lynch optimally for the data we have, and not set a number?

FPMH?

All players tied AT THE TOP, everyone.

Baity, self votes are not happy making. In fact, didn't pesc-um do that last game? Fong's gambit shall thusly be accepted (probably at the end of this post)

Further, the question you ask assumes we need a specific number. Why?

Oh yeah, Fluffy Puffy Marshmallow Hugs. How could I forget that, pesco...

I have no idea what Baity is arguing here:

Suppose that I want more votes against me. You reminded me about my role. Probability says that I'll end up damaging Town more than helping them if I get lynched on D1 though.

All I know is he hasn't unvoted in that post

Why...does it look like Baity is responding to the post UNDER him?

Carth taking it easy on someone who might be new? Is this new?

Rou, you feel like you are arguing semantics on some of your anti-pesco points. Regardless, I eagerly anticipate his response. I also think the rest of your post is ok. At this point we need to move away from analyzing the set up and nothing else.

Pesco's response is adequete. I like it

Rou, however, brings up a good point about how it's not really that great a plan. Either way, I tend to accept Fong's Gambit, so that's why I'll be on the record for voting Baity, most likely.

Carth doesn't seem to be scumhunting so much as play the set up.

Baity seems to be overdefensive about the dice thing

so wait, Kanguya...you say that double lynching is awesome, but 2 lynches is too dangerous?

And did you REALLY need to guess at Baity's role? There's no need for that


at least you want us to play now, pesco.

Oh hey, Kiro's alive. At least he gets it. Good posting overall

Pesco is wrong about Rou, and it feels a bit off. Rather, Rou is scumhunting (though slightly tunnely, and a couple bad points)

So...why DON'T you vote Affinity, Kanguya Wafflesan?

Oh good, you do it when poked. Why only analyze those 5 players though, Kanguya?

Ok, I'm done, not liking Kanguya much, Carth isn't giving me warm fuzzies, and ##Unvote
Vote BaitySM

is just all over the place. Alert needs to post moar (lol hypocrisy).

Cut by pesco:

Ok, seriously, you are doing this on purpose. Please try NOT to piss off Rou this time?

Agree with the other pesco cut.

[Pesco]

I'm not obliged to put up with Rou being silly every game now am I?