Timebomb Game Thread

[charlou]

Once a scum outs, they are useless in the game.
We watch where they vote, but we won;t listen to a thing they say.
They might want to bus a team mate or vote a town.
It's all wifom and should be ignored.
There's no value in scum outing imo.

Diva's not saying "once a scum outs" ... read her post again (relevant part bolded):

There's no real answer to that.
I've suggested the only real way to lynch someone is by over killing them. Maybe 7 votes would be enough to ensure they are dead. Maybe more. If we WANT someone dead, then there should be 7 or 8 people willing to pile on. If it's Day 1 faffing around in the dark, we can opt not to vote, OR we can spread the vote, so that we hit some scum and get them jumpy, maybe wasting some protective measures on themselves.

It doesn't matter if we want them dead or not, they can still play. Why isn't anybody factoring revenge voting?

This game is different in that even if you think someone is scum, even if you out a scum, even if everyone KNOWS they are scum, you still have to face them in the morning. And they can vote against you.

If they want to out themselves and reveal themselves as dead scum that would be counter productive imo. They will surely then vote for town players or look to bus a team mate. This would be risky.
No I think logically, dead/dying scum would still lie low and claim town because they still have a job to do to steer the vote away from team mates.

I see what you are saying, MZ. But my point is that say one scum is outed...the game lasts 6 days. You can have as many as 6 votes against you (although it is doubtful that there would be that many, unless we outed a scum early in the game).

[charlou]

because I did think of it and it would truly truly suck if we lost because of not voting. but you and ob are probably right.

Can anyone recall games where we've been penalised for not voting here? UT, you've played here often enough to know this would be unusual. I'm wondering why you've brought it up twice now.

[Uselesstwit]

because if town just never voted our seer would have all the time in the world to view people and it would be a slam dunk for town. I just can't see zigmen leaving town that big a loophole.

[charlou]

Interesting mayor bandwagon forming on Charlou. Bolero is the player I'm most suspicious of, but I haven't yet read pages 3-10 so I'm still a bit in the dark about the Aza thing.

I hope that's not a carry over from another game. Seriously, what have I done to warrant suspicion? It'd be awfully convenient for scum to target me this game, using the last one as a kind of "Well, look how she fooled us there" excuse.

No my suspicion is based purely on the merits of your play to date.
Like Oblivion on me, I may be wrong.
It happens. It's just an overall feeling. Not specific to a particular post.

This pings after you just said you haven't read a large portion of the thread. Also, "overall feelings" do not good arguments make. Why mention your suspicion if you're not prepared to back it up?

oblivion, you're pretty good with meta ... have you noticed MZ do this before?

[divagreen]

Except scum could lie about their roles and town wouldn't know for sure, until endgame.

[charlou]

because if town just never voted our seer would have all the time in the world to view people and it would be a slam dunk for town. I just can't see zigmen leaving town that big a loophole.

How can you be certain it's just town 'not voting' though ... and what if town want to vote? Will you assume they must be scum? Even if you assume town all agree not to vote and don't vote, and scum will be the only ones voting, scum will stand out like dog's balls, and meanwhile town wont vote for them as agreed, while scum pile points on town.

[charlou]

because if town just never voted our seer would have all the time in the world to view people and it would be a slam dunk for town. I just can't see zigmen leaving town that big a loophole.

How can you be certain it's just town 'not voting' though ... and what if town want to vote? Will you assume they must be scum? Even if you assume town all agree not to vote and don't vote, and scum will be the only ones voting, scum will stand out like dog's balls, and meanwhile town wont vote for them as agreed, while scum pile points on town.

IOW, town not voting is an unworkable idea anyway.

[Uselesstwit]

yes but if the game is designed for 14 day votes plus or minus whatever the night actions can add to last a normal mafia amount of time(say 4 to 7 days) only having 3 or 4 day votes would push it well past into the realm where the seer would be able to view every single person in the game. It just feels like there would be a restriction somewhere in the game setup so that town couldn't win by a purely mechanical means. It would also be boring as hell and not really mafia.

[Uselesstwit]

I'm not talking about town not voting, I'm talking about what people who aren't sure should do, along with a dose of paranoia about game design. If you're confident you have a scum then of course you should vote, of course doing so will make you higher up on the list of people to be viewed.

[charlou]

yes but if the game is designed for 14 day votes plus or minus whatever the night actions can add to last a normal mafia amount of time(say 4 to 7 days) only having 3 or 4 day votes would push it well past into the realm where the seer would be able to view every single person in the game. It just feels like there would be a restriction somewhere in the game setup so that town couldn't win by a purely mechanical means. It would also be boring as hell and not really mafia.

And meanwhile scum would be piling votes on for days on end, while town would have a last minute feeble counter attack? If anyone is taking a no-vote idea seriously, they're either failing logic, or they're scum.

Who first brought the no-votes idea up, anyway?

[charlou]

I'm not talking about town not voting, I'm talking about what people who aren't sure should do, along with a dose of paranoia about game design. If you're confident you have a scum then of course you should vote, of course doing so will make you higher up on the list of people to be viewed.

Somewhere our wires got crossed, then .. I thought the idea of no-voting was raised as an actual town ploy.

[charlou]

I'm not talking about town not voting, I'm talking about what people who aren't sure should do, along with a dose of paranoia about game design. If you're confident you have a scum then of course you should vote, of course doing so will make you higher up on the list of people to be viewed.

Somewhere our wires got crossed, then .. I thought the idea of no-voting was raised as an actual town ploy.

Clarifying: I mean the idea of town agreeing not to vote.


I don't intend to leave a vote on anyone at the end of the day unless I feel certain that person is scum.

[Bolero]

Charlou, can I quickly ask - why is your online status hidden? Is there a reason, or are you just feeling cagey?

On the voting vs not voting thing, I suggest we vote. Seriously, if there IS a town special out there who can remove points, then if we cock it up, there's a chance for redemption. The seer could view the voted-for person (or if that action's likely to be blocked by scum, they could alternatively view the starter of the bandwagon), and if that person is cleared, then their votes can be removed a little further down the track.

[Bolero]

Charlou, can I quickly ask - why is your online status hidden? Is there a reason, or are you just feeling cagey?

And I want to make it clear that the only reason I'm asking this is because I've given you my mayor vote and would just like to be a little more certain of what I'm doing. I'm not trying to cast suspicion here.

[charlou]

Is this better?