Anniversary Mafia Game Thread - The Final Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Serah

Yuffie, you say that as if we lynching an active member day one actually gives the potential to yield better results. I don't believe it does. What do you have that makes you think Setzer is mafia?

---

What made you think I think Setzer's mafia? I'm looking around with a spotlight and seeing what it picks up. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Quistis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Yuffie

Killing a town on Day 1 saves mafia one more night's work. How often does stringing up inactives work out? I'd rather like to see people fighting to see who gets killed Day 1 instead of everyone agreeing on someone who doesn't/can't argue and then not posting.

Anyone want to help me hang Setzer or do I have to pick a more controversial target?

---

Looks like it's time to argue.

All I'm saying is that there is little to no point in going after a one-voter for any reason that an inactive wouldn't qualify for.

As for stringing up inactives, it has worked before. I fail to see the whole mafia=active theory that had always existed. If we're going for someone known for relative silence, whether it be a one-voter or an inactive, we shouldn't be reasoning as why one's behavior would be more suspicious.

---

There's little to judge about inactives and nothing gained in killing all inactives if there is one mafia pretending to be inert. The net loss is too high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Quistis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laguna

Voting inactives is ok strategy, but usually the 100% inactives are not scum, just people without time. The true scum are the ones who make 1-3 posts, keeping active but under the radar.

---

I fail to see how this applies. If someone doesn't have time to play, their allegiance is irrelevant to their inactivity.

---

It does McFly. An inactive town is still one more person for mafia to kill whether they do it at night or not. It doesnt matter if they're here or not but that they need to be dead for mafia to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Serah

##unvote:
##vote: Galuf

Three posts, 1 vote, piled on an inactive. If we're going for someone who at least showed up and hoping people who will not make it will be replaced he is a much better choice than Setzer.

---

Useless. Galuf is not here either and thus no conversation. Is he a better choice than a complete inactive? Not a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Blank

I'm sorry about the edit, I didn't know. Really really sorry about the picture, I feel embarassed. :sweat: < trying to find an embarrassed smiley, bugger it. And sorry I've been inactive! I don't have a lot of time today and there's so many new posts, you guys should make a 48 hour day. But I'm done apologizing now and hopefully won't have to anymore!

##vote: Galuf

He was the first person to bandwagon in the game when there were plenty of other inactive to vote for too.

---

A bandwagon vote itself. I like.

I can't really think of anyone who should be lynched on day one, so I am not sure I am going to use my vote this round! :kaoyatta:

##Unvote: Setzer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Quistis

I fail to see how this applies. If someone doesn't have time to play, their allegiance is irrelevant to their inactivity.

---

That is definitely true. Which means they are no more likely of being mafia than town. In fact, they are more likely of being town since the majority of players are generally town-aligned. It's pretty much a crap shoot with low odds.

Of course, if you are just voting them out because the game is more fun with active players then I'm down with that.

Quote:

---

There's little to judge about inactives and nothing gained in killing all inactives if there is one mafia pretending to be inert. The net loss is too high.

---

Then why go after a one-voter? Besides, a large amount of inactives can be extremely dangerous for the town. Towards the endgame, an inactive town will be destroyed if the mafia has the voting power due to the town not being able to establish any sort of bloc. While we shouldn't slay inactive indiscriminately, it's certainly worth trying to weed them out if possible.

Quote:

---

An inactive town is still one more person for mafia to kill whether they do it at night or not. It doesnt matter if they're here or not but that they need to be dead for mafia to win.

---

Of course. But this applies to everyone. Active people can at least use their powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Rikku

I can't really think of anyone who should be lynched on day one, so I am not sure I am going to use my vote this round! :kaoyatta:

##Unvote: Setzer

---

The Al Bhed didn't get to me, but this does. Not voting is probably the worst thing a townsperson can do, and for a mafia it doesn't make much difference.

##Unvote: Setzer
##Vote: Rikku

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Laguna

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Quistis

I fail to see how this applies. If someone doesn't have time to play, their allegiance is irrelevant to their inactivity.

---

That is definitely true. Which means they are no more likely of being mafia than town. In fact, they are more likely of being town since the majority of players are generally town-aligned. It's pretty much a crap shoot with low odds.

Of course, if you are just voting them out because the game is more fun with active players then I'm down with that.

---

I'm not because it's easy lazy and scummy. I'd rather an active's blood be on my hands and know he was town and his heart was in the right place than let us kill (and keep killing) people who give nothing. Everything they've argued is then important and you can see who they talked to or avoided. Granted that's not much info on Day 1 to work with but it will help us in the future.

[QUOTE='[M] Yuffie;3165373']

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Serah

Yuffie, you say that as if we lynching an active member day one actually gives the potential to yield better results. I don't believe it does. What do you have that makes you think Setzer is mafia?

---

What made you think I think Setzer's mafia? I'm looking around with a spotlight and seeing what it picks up. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Quistis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Yuffie

Killing a town on Day 1 saves mafia one more night's work. How often does stringing up inactives work out? I'd rather like to see people fighting to see who gets killed Day 1 instead of everyone agreeing on someone who doesn't/can't argue and then not posting.

Anyone want to help me hang Setzer or do I have to pick a more controversial target?

---

Looks like it's time to argue.

All I'm saying is that there is little to no point in going after a one-voter for any reason that an inactive wouldn't qualify for.
There's little to judge about inactives and nothing gained in killing all inactives if there is one mafia pretending to be inert. The net loss is too high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Quistis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laguna

Voting inactives is ok strategy, but usually the 100% inactives are not scum, just people without time. The true scum are the ones who make 1-3 posts, keeping active but under the radar.

---

I fail to see how this applies. If someone doesn't have time to play, their allegiance is irrelevant to their inactivity.

---

It does McFly. An inactive town is still one more person for mafia to kill whether they do it at night or not. It doesnt matter if they're here or not but that they need to be dead for mafia to win.

---

I just assumed you wouldn't so directly contradict yourself Yuffie. :D

Quote:

---

Of course, if you are just voting them out because the game is more fun with active players then I'm down with that.

---

This isn't a game; it's life. :stare:

Quote:

---

Which means they are no more likely of being mafia than town. In fact, they are more likely of being town since the majority of players are generally town-aligned. It's pretty much a crap shoot with low odds.

---

As is every vote. However, I'd rather play with people whose actions I can appropriately judge. With all due respect, I have faith in my abilities to call out bulltrout.

Quote was accidentally broken, but I don't want to edit it! You all get the picture

Serah, that post is ugly. You should be ashamed. :stare:

I'll just get naked like that post to make up for it ;)

Around 2 hours to go, kupo! Here are the current votes:
[M] Sazh (5) - Kain, Quistis, Refia, Rydia, SELFVOTE
[M] Quina (4) - Quistis, Refia, Penelo, Serah, Setzer, Leila, SELFVOTE
[M] Biggs (3) - Kain, Galuf, Cid, Laguna, Serah, Serah, SELFVOTE
[M] Galuf (3) - Wakka, Serah, Blank
[M] Rikku (2) - Rydia, Setzer, Refia, Laguna, SELF VOTE
[M] Sezter (1) - Rikku, Yuffie, Laguna
[M] Cid (1) - Wedge, Laguna
[M] Relm (1) - Faris
[M] Serah (1) - Noctis
[M] Wakka (1) - Relm
[M] Yuffie (0) - Quistis
[M] Quistis (0) - Laguna
[M] Noctis (0) - Serah
[M] Laguna (0) - Yuffie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [M] Quistis

As is every vote.

---

Not really. Sure you never know what the person is until the flip, but at least by voting for people with posts you can make an educated guess. Voting for someone who has presented no evidence is by definition an uneducated guess.

Splitting hairs here. If you'd want to discuss this more I will refer you to my book, Silent Mafia: Inactive Voting and It's Role In Modern Voting Theory.