=|

[Ashe]

Don't clutter up the thread with shitfuck, please. I don't want to distract from the points that people want to get handled by personal comments.

[Jonathan Meer]

Just a'commentin' on some hilarious post-game swagger, hoss; what's the grill-gunk?

[John Doe]

Also, you should NEVER judge a game's outcome just because a person or two suspects you. Suspicions change over time, and without warning. You can never tell with these things. Rem nearly gave up the last game of Mafia because Kami was on our asses. I told Rem that we could still pull a win, and we almost did. So meh.

[Jonathan Meer]

I don't regret my decision in the slightest, and would make it again in retrospect.

EDIT: Seriously, this isn't hard. People were dying without explanation. Not even suspiciously. Without any explanation whatsoever. Completely circumventing the way, fundamentally, the game works. Mafia requires at least some ground from which you can make judgments. Even if there are whacked out rules and things in place, there's still that bottom ground. That ground is supposed to be the rules.

When rules are all non-existent, and everything's all dada and cubist and you're floating in the void while Scriabin-blue goes zipping by on a light-beam, it's time to stop tripping, roll up the mat, and move on.

I had absolutely no guarantee that I was getting a straight game. From the looks of things, I wasn't. The rules didn't seem to apply. For that reason, along with the fact that our chances of winning were extremely small even if the weirdness of two people dying in the first two days wasn't taken into account, there simply isn't a point. Beyond this cliff, the game becomes tedium.

To make it clear, I'm not blaming Rose. This may very well be the unluckiest game in history (certainly Chubbs' history, including those games we played years ago).

[Ashe]

Just a'commentin' on some hilarious post-game swagger, hoss; what's the grill-gunk?

Jus' don't be mad doggin' brotha's and gettin' up in they grill, das all I'm sayin'.

[Celena]

Can't you just turn a non-special townie into a mafia member? I had an awesome role.

[Rem-13]

Good to see I'm as brilliant as I knew I was.

[Ashe]

Good to see I'm as brilliant as I knew I was.

Ok, Meer, you did call this one.

[John Doe]

Yup, getting mafia three times in a row when I DIDN'T want to play mafia is super lucky.

The BEST luck.

Fuck the RNG.

[Waffuru]

John Doe being mafia was super unlucky. It was pretty much my only mission to make sure he died.

Mafia getting the doctor on the first night is pretty damn lucky too. =/

edit: It was also interesting that this turns out being the game that everyone wants to wait and no-lynch.

[John Doe]

It was likely that the "no-lynch" would have happened first day anyway. But people were curious about my death, so they wanted to see how it worked. So another day of no-lynching. Except there was. :\

[Ashe]

The unfortunate circumstances are annoying, but that's to be expected. I don't necessarily have an issue with that.

My annoyance stems entirely from the voting rules and the "assassin" role. I was informed that having this opinion was greatly insulting, but it wasn't meant to be. I think the interaction between these two rules was not as ideal as I would have hoped. I get what the role wanted to accomplish, but I think the limitation of "if no majority was reached", something of which I had guessed, was not combining "No Lynch" votes and "Lacking a vote" into the same category of not counting. In its current form, it guarantees a Town kill every day, whether through lynching or through "rabble rousing".

The town members, instead of having times of being coordinated to get a better feel, will get a kill every single day without question. They will not have a doctor position to need to take into account, so they will absolutely get it. The balance is that they do not know for certain the alignment of who they are killing. The upside is that they only have to be right four times, whether through majority vote or "rabble rousing". An actual "No Lynch" vote is not possible at all until the trigger happy town member is killed, so there is nothing the mafia can say or do to buy themselves time, only hope that the townie is wrong.

The part that annoys me is that this role is supposed to be limited by the fact that it "only works when a majority has not been reached", but if I ask 18 people which movie they want to go see, and 12 of them say "I don't want to see a movie", then I'm going to assume that "The majority DOES NOT WANT TO SEE A MOVIE". Not that "the majority doesn't care, so we'll go to the one that 2 people (of the 6 that named a movie) wanted to see and take all 18 to see it." In this game if 9 people out of 18 declare that they do not want to lynch, without including the nonvoters (who are rightfully an apathy vote of "don't care" as they didn't state a preference), then a hung jury is assumed and yet an execution is guaranteed regardless, which left me feeling that the votes the townsfolk were placing were absolutely and totally meaningless until a single person was actively named 51% of the time.

I'm not going to say to change it, however, since its just a personal preference that I don't like. Anyone can run the game how they like, but I highly dislike that interaction between those two rules, as I feel that it effectively DOES NOT limit the "gunner's" power at all, in actual execution, no pun intended.

[Waffuru]

So who was the last mafia? Meer was one, but we still don't know who was the other.

Isn't four mafia kind of low for 18 players too?

@Ashe, the Shit Stirrer doesn't HAVE to use their power when no majority is reached, since they are more likely to hit an innocent then a scum.

[Shou]

<------- I am Mafia

[Ashe]

It was likely that the "no-lynch" would have happened first day anyway. But people were curious about my death, so they wanted to see how it worked. So another day of no-lynching. Except there was. :\

There was no "likely" to it. "No Lynch" had exactly 9 votes out of 18, without counting those that didn't vote. I felt that had reached 50%, but I didn't realize "No Lynch" was a discarded vote. So the only votes that counted for anything were the 3 votes for John Doe (and I think one or two for another, didn't look). People assumed it was a foregone conclusion that "No Lynch" was the vote.

Day 2 had 4 out of 9 votes for REM, and 2 out of 9 votes for Ashe (I noticed, but did not point out publicly, he overlooked Kami's vote against me, which made me think but then really made it obvious when the lynching used his exact phrasing). I didn't notice, and should have, that Rose didn't tally up the No Lynch votes at all, clueing that they were ignored by game rules, as I just assumed that it was obvious that if 9 votes weren't reached by another than it would be considered a majority of "No Lynch".

I wish when some pressed the question about this "No Lynch cannot count as a majority" thing that it had been clarified better. I could just be misinterpreting those that were asking, but that's what my thought was. When I PMed to get better clarity, I literally got a return PM simply quoting the original wording as if I had overlooked it. I decided then that it was best to simply drop it until the game ended.

EDIT: Waffuru - I know they don't have to. They have little reason not to. I know they are limited to "No majority has been reached". I did not know during the game that reaching a majority of "No Lynch" counted as not reaching a majority, once I had suspected that this was the limitation the gunner had. I fucked up the understanding of the rule and that's fine, but I think others did as well. I was frustrated since the beginning because all attempts at clarifying were essentially responded to with a reposting of the original phrasing, which, at least for me, didn't clear it up.

[Waffuru]

Well, Kami's role was to insert someone into the noose if the mob didn't pick anyone. Had he chosen to do nothing then no one would have been lynched, instead he picked John Doe (hate u shifo) and we know where that went.

If you'd actually gotten to 9 votes for REM then he would've died and Kami wouldn't have had the chance to pick anyone.

[John Doe]

So, if a majority voted "No-Lynch", would you have let the shit-starter do his thing, Rose?

That's the only thing I'm curious about.

[Ashe]

I realize that. Now.

"No Lynch" should not even be a vote option if it doesn't count. It should instead by "Null Vote", "No Vote", "Don't Care", "Abstain", or something more accurate. With the current wording, it comes off as the gunner being able to simply overrule the mob's vote if a majority votes of not lynching someone comes across. With that aspect, I don't feel it has a strong enough limitation.

[Kami]

My special role broke the game O_o

[Waffuru]

So, if a majority voted "No-Lynch", would you have let the shit-starter do his thing, Rose?

That's the only thing I'm curious about.

I believe so, though I disagree with that.