Dies to Removal

You guys wanna discuss Mafia? Fine, do it here!

This thread is for strategy, rules, spirit, any topic you guys seem fit to discuss...so long as it pertains to Mafia.

So, let's begin.

So, for the first item up for discussion, I say, for the time being, we limit to running one game at a time. I'm pretty sure most of you agree with this, but why not kick off our discussion thread with a discussion?



I'm also thinking games could be ran depending on what the players want. Meaning, right now in the game hosting list, we have 5 or 6 games listed. I'm thinking I'll make a poll and we'll decide which one we want to play first together.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure what the problem with having multiple games going at once is but if that is standard for mafia sections then ok

Well, in larger communities such as on Sally, they usually run multiple games at a time.

However, we're a small community, and in order to have numerous games at once, some will have to BE in numerous games at once.

I just think, for now, we should hold off on running more than one at a time.

Seems pretty reasonable.

Anyone doing anything to recruit fresh meat new blood new players?

yea. i guess i would be willing to be in multiple games at once but i seem to take it less seriously than others so maybe they would be unhappy with me for doing that

Anyone doing anything to recruit fresh meat new blood new players?

I mean, I've got links in sigs on here, MTGS, and MTGDarkness, but I'm not overly active on any of them, so...


Anyone have any ideas on this?

yea. i guess i would be willing to be in multiple games at once but i seem to take it less seriously than others so maybe they would be unhappy with me for doing that

No, most players won't mind if YOU play in more than one at a time so long as you can keep all the facts straight (who
claimed what in which game, etc.) What matters is whether YOU feel comfortable being in more than one. There was a time when I would regularly be in 4 games at once and had no problem with it, but nowadays, I can't be in more than one at a time, and can barely contribute even then.

I can't seem to find the sign-up sheet, so I'll just post here: it's almost Spring, which means I lose most of my free time, and I'll have to bow out of the next game.

I can handle 2 easily, 3 gets a bit rough. I won't go higher than that.

So here on DTR we've mostly adopted the L-2 protocol from MTGS. That standard has its advantages, most notably that it allows the town to better control the time of the lynch. Overzealous newbies and overeager scum can't hammer as easily and scum can't hammer themselves, which essentially buys the town some valuable discussion time (and avoids horrendous mislynches in the case of the overzealous newbie).

Mafiascum, however, uses L-1 as the time for a claim. The advantage here is that you really are on the verge of being lynched - you know things are serious and you really do have to claim before you die. With L-2 it's not uncommon in the later Days for the scum votes alone to bring someone up to claim range. I've also seen plenty of wagons reach L-2 with no serious case being presented and no one really wanting to lynch the person quite yet. Claiming at that time is
disadvantageous to the town when simple discussion could have avoided outing a power role.

I'd like to propose a new DTR standard that gives you the advantages of both of these methods. At L-2, voting stops. No one should be pushed to L-1 before seeing a claim, same as the MTGS standard. However, to get the same impact as Mafiascum's L-1 standard, someone who is not already on the wagon must voice their support and ask for the claim. By forcing that request to come from an additional person (without the additional vote), the wagon is effectively at L-1 without yet being within easy hammer range.

Sound good?

No, bad idea. No need to make such a sweeping policy for the site, especially since you're a player who will do that annoying "I'm not voting but consider my vote on you" stuff. People shouldn't feel like they need to hold back their votes for the sake of some blanket site policy.

I think it sounds good

No, bad idea. No need to make such a sweeping policy for the site, especially since you're a player who will do that annoying "I'm not voting but consider my vote on you" stuff. People shouldn't feel like they need to hold back their votes for the sake of some blanket site policy.

Are you against the idea of claim range in general, then? Like, just vote whenever you want to and don't worry about whether you're about to hammer someone?

No, bad idea. No need to make such a sweeping policy for the site, especially since you're a player who will do that annoying "I'm not voting but consider my vote on you" stuff. People shouldn't feel like they need to hold back their votes for the sake of some blanket site policy.

Are you against the idea of claim range in general, then? Like, just vote whenever you want to and don't worry about whether you're about to hammer someone?

No, obviously I'm not against the idea of a claim range. It should be L-2. But to say "voting must stop at L-2" is
ridiculous. Your stated intent is to make things easier for the town:

So here on DTR we've mostly adopted the L-2 protocol from MTGS. That standard has its advantages, most notably that it allows the town to better control the time of the lynch. Overzealous newbies and overeager scum can't hammer as easily and scum can't hammer themselves, which essentially buys the town some valuable discussion time (and avoids horrendous mislynches in the case of the overzealous newbie).

....

I'd like to propose a new DTR standard that gives you the advantages of both of these methods. At L-2, voting stops. No one should be pushed to L-1 before seeing a claim, same as the MTGS standard. However, to get the same impact as Mafiascum's L-1 standard, someone who is not already on the wagon must voice their support and ask for the claim.

Trying to warp Mafia policy to make the game easier for the town is a horrible idea.

Where do you think the L-2 policy came from!? It certainly wasn't when a bunch of scum players sat down with a bunch of town players and decided what's fair for Mafia policy. Any voting policy should be as advantageous to the town as possible - that's the whole point.

Where do you think the L-2 policy came from!? It certainly wasn't when a bunch of scum players sat down with a bunch of town players and decided what's fair for Mafia policy. Any voting policy should be as advantageous to the town as possible - that's the whole point.

So if the L-2 policy works...why change it? Your post really sounds like you want everyone to adopt your "I'm not voting you but consider my vote on you" playstyle.

Since when is this my playstyle? I don't remember ever saying those words.

Basically, there are disadvantages to the L-2 system. It can be improved. I'm not trying to force anyone into anything - I just think this would be a better standard, especially since Kaze and other folks from Mafiascum are confused as to why we're claiming so early.

they'll adjust

Since when is this my playstyle? I don't remember ever saying those words.

Basically, there are disadvantages to the L-2 system. It can be improved. I'm not trying to force anyone into anything - I just think this would be a better standard, especially since Kaze and other folks from Mafiascum are confused as to why we're claiming so early.

They'll be confused for all of one post before someone says "we claim at L-2 here" and then the mafiascum player goes "oh, ok."

I'd like to propose a new DTR standard ...

If people want to adopt your
playstyle that's fine even though it's actually disastrous in my view. So anyone who votes past L-2 before you've had your fill of a day's discussion is scum? Look how many hammer votes or votes from L-2 to L-1 come from townies. Your proposal is a recipe for mislynches and if you wish to stick with it, that's fine, but suggesting it as a new standard for DTR mafia is a bad idea and one I soundly reject.

Spam, I'm obviously just here for a conversation. People are welcome to adopt it or not. You're treating me like I'm on a crusade when all I see is a way to improve the game from the town's perspective. Just chill.

You're right that lots of hammers and L-1 votes come from townies. That's not a bad thing or something I'm trying to fix here. What I am trying to fix is the random newbie RVS vote slip-up or the late game scum control that can cause claims that are bad for the town. Can you tell me what's so disastrous about this?

Spam, I'm obviously just here for a conversation. People are welcome to adopt it or not. You're treating me like I'm on a crusade when all I see is a way to improve the game from the town's perspective. Just chill.

You're right that lots of hammers and L-1 votes come from townies. That's not a bad thing or something I'm trying to fix here. What I am trying to fix is the random newbie RVS vote slip-up or the late game scum control that can cause claims that are bad for the town. Can you tell me what's so disastrous about this?

It's disastrous because, under the guise of helping the town, this policy actually helps scum way more since they can sit back, wait for some townie to be the one to burst the mystical L-2 bubble, and watch as the
accusations fly. At the very least it gives townies more rope to hang themselves with if the day is prolonged simply for the sake of prolonging the day.

Random newbies will always slip up. Trying to coddle them through policy is not what we should be doing. Most of us learned the hard way about what to do and what not to do. Lessons make players better, hand-holding policies do not. The newbie who gets heat for hammering is going to learn their lesson fast. No need to write policy when the law of mafia does the trick just fine.

Basically the L-2 claim policy works and trying to "fix" the problem of newbies being newbies isn't going succeed. Let the players learn their lessons naturally.

Of course they'll slip up. But they should have the chance to discuss their way out of a claim before being forced into it. I've seen several wagons reach L-2 over some stupid quip that the player didn't even get a chance to defend against. Then they claim vanilla town while discussing what they really meant and their wagon dissipates. You can't tell me that claim benefitted the town. That player should have been given the chance to talk before claiming.

Giving the town more rope is fair enough - long Day 1's in particular do generally help the scum. But I'm not trying to catch scum with any change here, so I'm not sure why you're saying accusations would be flying about whoever pushed them to claim. Should be about the same as whoever pushes to L-2 now, only delayed by one vote.

Of course they'll slip up. But they should have the chance to discuss their way out of a claim before being forced into it. I've seen several wagons reach L-2 over some stupid quip that the player didn't even get a chance to defend against. Then they claim vanilla town while discussing what they really meant and their wagon dissipates. You can't tell me that claim benefitted the town. That player should have been given the chance to talk before claiming.

Stupid quips and the wagons that follow are a necessary part of the game. Read Annorax's Bastard Mod Mafia on Sally. Nai was a mason but he referred to the Mason chat as "scumchat" and got lynched immediately. He was also a serial killer.

Sometimes a throwaway quip will hurt a n00b
town but it can just as easily trap a n00b scum, especially if they get counterclaimed or act even scummier in response to having to claim.

If we can't run up people because of their comments in a game based entirely on comments, what do we do?

Heh, that's pretty funny. I've never read that one.

But anyway, I highly doubt that any change here would have stopped those people from getting lynched. Slipping "scumchat" is going to get you lynched. Acting scummy in response to pressure is going to get you lynched. I'd just rather see that response to judge if it's scummy or not before diving in for the claim.

I'm cool with the L-2 claiming.

I don't personally like it because I feel L-1 gets more reads/better reactions, but I understand the differing stuff here.

It's weird but I adjust to you guys as needed.

What's everyone think about a "No thanking posts until the game is over" rule?

Fine by me.

w00t?

If the mod thinks its important, it will be a rule.for that mods game

yeah no thanks until the game is over is generally the way to go

Hm.

We don't have global Mafia forum rules, I see.

We decided against game rules since each mod will do what they want anyways, but if you really want forum rules go ahead I guess

I suppose leaving it to the discretion of the mod is better.

yeah I would prefer that other than the standard rules of don't edit or PM quote

#ClintEastwood

I think I'll run The Quick and the Dead Mafia. Every three days (not Days), if a lynch has not been decided, a townie will die at random.

Terrible idea?

Hm.

We don't have global Mafia forum rules, I see.

Don't need 'em, don't want 'em

#ClintEastwood

I think I'll run The Quick and the Dead Mafia. Every three days (not Days), if a lynch has not been decided, a townie will die at random.

Terrible idea?

sounds fun for a quick game

Isolate function is a go! Apparently on prosilver skin only, but there should be two links below everyone's post count (View: All/In topic) that will let you find all of that poster's posts in the current thread. Thanks, Colonel!

EDIT: Scumbag tells me this is online for all skins now, so you darkies can do this now too.