Zombie Apocalypse Mafia - GAME OVER

[Bardiche]

I actually thought my role was pretty damn useless when I got it.

[Shadoweh]

Bard: HI I AM A MAFIA GOON THIS IS WHO I KILLED LAST NIGHT
Town: Okay Bard Third Party Survivor Vig that Wins with Town No one Touches Bard!
I almost thought it was a message to someone like ReV about how to claim without lying or outright stating your role.

All this talk about serial killers and leashes reminded me I wrote some things up after dying, after Kilga used a big word and I looked up what it means. Of course, it is a cozy mountain of text

Unilateral thinking and vigilante kills.

A vigilante is not a role that lets town vote to get another lynch that day. A vigilante is a role giving a command for that player to pick a person they want removed from the game in order to further their side's win condition. Pretending this is a group decision is a fallacy. It will ALWAYS be the decision of one player. That player should be held accountable for taking the action regardless of if the majority of players agreed with it or not. Arguing otherwise is effectively the same as disregarding seperate votes in lynches because a majority of players had to vote for someone. If the vig doesn't think the majority pick is scum, they shouldn't kill them. There is no way to guarentee the majority wasn't swayed by scum logic, while your alignment is 100% confirmed. By this logic it's more advantageous for a scum or third party vigilante to kill whoever town wants them to. It removes blame from them, gives them townie cred and moves town closer to a loss. This is all ignoring how vigilantes in general are pro-town roles.

[PX]

Oh yeah, to add on to the brokenness of Bard, he can also listen in on the temp masons chats.

[Kilgamayan]

Bard: HI I AM A MAFIA GOON THIS IS WHO I KILLED LAST NIGHT
Town: Okay Bard Third Party Survivor Vig that Wins with Town No one Touches Bard!
I almost thought it was a message to someone like ReV about how to claim without lying or outright stating your role.

All this talk about serial killers and leashes reminded me I wrote some things up after dying, after Kilga used a big word and I looked up what it means. Of course, it is a cozy mountain of text

Unilateral thinking and vigilante kills.

A vigilante is not a role that lets town vote to get another lynch that day. A vigilante is a role giving a command for that player to pick a person they want removed from the game in order to further their side's win condition. Pretending this is a group decision is a fallacy. It will ALWAYS be the decision of one player. That player should be held accountable for taking the action regardless of if the majority of players agreed with it or not. Arguing otherwise is effectively the same as disregarding seperate votes in lynches because a majority of players had to vote for someone. If the vig doesn't think the majority pick is scum, they shouldn't kill them. There is no way to guarentee the majority wasn't swayed by scum logic, while your alignment is 100% confirmed. By this logic it's more advantageous for a scum or third party vigilante to kill whoever town wants them to. It removes blame from them, gives them townie cred and moves town closer to a loss. This is all ignoring how vigilantes in general are pro-town roles.

This is also all ignoring that the only thing 100% confirmed alignment means is that the action is theoretically well-intended. It sure as hell doesn't guarantee a scum dies, and if you claim vig and then stick your fingers in your ears as others present ideas you're not only doing the town a disservice, you're outright ruining the game for whoever is in your crosshairs regardless of their alignment. If you're going to take a unilateral action like that, just do it immediately. Don't make people dance for your amusement.

I can only guess you haven't been playing long enough to see the same number of people with vig roles be wrong that I've seen.

[UncertainJakutten]

To be fair? Town voting on the vig doesn't tend to work out well either. I'm naturally of the school of vig and town be damned. Though I'll also note I use vigs to policy kill people that aren't going to help the town, so my opinion is probably for a different playstyle.

[Kilgamayan]

Obviously a public vig vote isn't going to be perfect either, but it's going to be a more informed decision by default, which is a good thing more often than not. And scum may very well try to get their opinion in on who to kill! They'd be stupid not to. That's where it becomes your duty as a good townie to take a look at all the suggestions and weigh the merits of each one. Do your research into the points that are being used to back up the opinions if you feel you need to. Make the most informed decision possible to maximize your chances of hitting scum. You certainly don't have to listen to everything everyone says, but it's exceedingly arrogant to the point of being anti-town (and anti-fun) to tell everyone you have an extra kill if you are operating under the assumption you have seen everything there is to see and that no one is going to point anything out worth reading.

[WHMZakeri]

Contrary to the way this argument is going, There is no good way to play a day vig other than to just "Hit scum." and that strategy by itself... well, it's on the level of "Shoot it until it dies." in terms of usefulness in application.

[Shadoweh]

That's where it becomes your duty as a good townie to take a look at all the suggestions and weigh the merits of each one. Do your research into the points that are being used to back up the opinions if you feel you need to. Make the most informed decision possible to maximize your chances of hitting scum.

I know you got  the impression I wasn't listening to anyone but this is what I was trying to do. There was a huge problem in that most people's views were from the perspective of  "Hourai was full scum therefore X" which I believed to be wrong, so not only could I not use half the arguments, I had to go look at Bardiche alone since everyone else was clearing him for his accidental bussing. I even stuck to someone on the list of  'people we needed to kill' :/ You can call it confirmation bias but I don't think I was hiding what I thought of your alignments when I was roleblocked and pleading with you to take another look at Bard. What's bizzare about this argument is you're the one you were trying to convince me to kill and you're upset that I realized you were town and refused to shoot you.

I didn't say it was perfect, just that the vig should use their own judgement to make the best decision. I can't remember reading a game here where the vig hit scum. It was obviously a mistake to declare it like that. UK has quite eloquently convinced me of her vigging ways.

[UncertainJakutten]

Though, Shadoweh, I'll also note I'm not *right* that often with vigs. Well...maybe slightly under 50% right with them. I don't get them often enough!

[Kilgamayan]

I'm not upset that you changed your mind away from me (at least, not in the grand scheme of gameplay theory discussion). I was more upset that you appeared to be putting a lot of effort into justifying a course of action that made the game lose all entertainment value.

To be honest, if you hadn't posted the thing I quoted I wouldn't have even thought to continue the discussion. >_>

[Kitten4u]

Finally finished reading the scum QT.

I think I only got out of that because MotK has a hard-on for elaborate fakeclaims. I will dub this phenomenon "Appeal to K4U".

I'm totally using this phrase. :V

[Bardiche]

Kilga is moreso referring to "give me one reason not to shoot you", when you admit that "no matter what I was going to shoot you" - it's demanding someone put in extra effort even though you've already resolved yourself to remove them from the game but refuse to explain exactly why you are shooting who you are shooting. Being removed from the game when you're town is always a bummer, so you do them a disservice by putting yourself above them and making them amuse you for no particular reason since you've already decided anyway.

I was being chided back in game for refusing to put any effort after you threatened to shoot me, but that's because there's no fun in futile actions.

[Pesco]

K4u had the best scum teacher, you can't expect any less of her.

Hwy Kilga you were quite the unfun jerk when you ##Yuyuko Doll me in Patchcon :V

[Serela]

Hwy Kilga you were quite the unfun jerk when you ##Yuyuko Doll me in Patchcon :V

It would have been amazing if you had actually flipped scum.

And yeah, quote of Huhwhat is pretty much true.

[capt. h]

You know, Huh What has a point.

Anyone claiming a point system for their role, or claiming a role that has more than two separate parts tops, is probably scum and should be lynched immediately. This applies even if they were 100% honest about their role (I think the last two jack of all trades role claims were scum, and Bard's really complex role was a scum role).

I'm not saying lynch all jack-of-all-trades, just all players that reveal all the parts of an overly complicated role.

[Kilgamayan]

Or you could lynch people for being scummy regardless of whether or not they pass or fail some arbitrary role-related litmus test. >_>

[capt. h]

Or you could lynch people for being scummy regardless of whether or not they pass or fail some arbitrary role-related litmus test. >_>

Yes I can, but MOTK likes elaborate fake role claims a bit too much.

Basically, my main rule for next game is that if there exists a case against the player (and I mean a real case, not a flimsy grammar issue), lynch them. I'm mostly setting up my filters against fake role claims after this game. It might be better to ignore any non-verifiable role claim completely.

[Bardiche]

Ridiculous roles are a staple of bastard moddery and role madness, I wouldn't declare it immediately scummy.

[Shadoweh]

Bard: I was only asking in case you had a Conqueror-esque kill yourself role. Your post was very convincing :p I've resolved to explain my insanity more clearly in the future regardless of role.

capt.h: There have been real points based roles that were town before. The Miller Bulletproof that gets a vig everytime he's shot comes to mind. You have to weigh the claim against their actions, as well as decide if there's another reason they could know what they know. You shouldn't clear someone for a claim and you shouldn't insta-lynch someone for one. Unless they claim ability to write the morning flavor

[Pesco]

A role has nothing to do with the alignment. Stop building preconceptions that will just make you look like an idiot for trying to play by a formula.

[UncertainJakutten]

tl;dr: Mafia is a qualitative reasoning game, not a quantitative one. Just read the people, and if you suck at it, get better.

[capt. h]

Fair enough. Roles can be insane.

A role has nothing to do with the alignment. Stop building preconceptions that will just make you look like an idiot for trying to play by a formula.

There are a lot of advantages to looking like an idiot in mafia.  :V

I'd argue that looking like an idiot is much wiser than looking intelligent. 

[WHMZakeri]

Fair enough. Roles can be insane.

There are a lot of advantages to looking like an idiot in mafia.  :V

I'd argue that looking like an idiot is much wiser than looking intelligent. 

...Which is why I had to lurk out most of the game.
I've completely forgotten how to be an idiot.

[UncertainJakutten]

No, looking like an idiot gets you vigged or lynched, particularly when you show nothing of your ~*~underlying intelligence~*~.

If you want to protect yourself by looking like an idiot, pray to whatever deity you worship that I don't have a gun.

[Bardiche]

One day, someone in AnonyMafia will have the brilliant idea of posing as a derpnoob and everyone will give them free passes forever.