Mafia: Lemmings 2 Edition

[NaOH]

Drat. This is a problem. Now mafia members are going to PM people saying they're the scooper. The lesson: do not trust anything you receive in a PM.

But if they happen to PM the scooper by chance at least one of the rogues gives themself away, no idea if they'll take that chance  http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" />

Then the scooper might give themself away by targeting the one who PM'd them. Or maybe that's a stretch.

[geoo]

I'm going to bed and thus retract my accusation against ccexplore. I was hoping someone would bandwagon trying to get the kill done (especially interesting if none of the previous votes are mafiosi, as then they could just pull it off together), and I could retract my accusation immediately after, with the suspicion that the voter is evil and ccexplore good. But being asleep that's not possible for me, and I don't want to see ccexplore killed.

[Simon]

I thought PMing people was discouraged anyway.

möbius: You don't have to trust any math, you can verify everything yourself. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" class="smiley" /> Yeah, the math is based on random voting. If we find a prime target with reasonable accuracy, it's viable to kill him right away, steering other people's attention to more useful things. So I recommend only with care to go by the pure-random math. It's just an idea.

Edit: The ccx accusation despite the math leads, even though explained, to understandable attention. Not sure why more exclamation points in this game make me suspicious though, when I wasn't using them so much in the last game.

There's also geoo's comment on how Giga is likely innocent. Giga hasn't posted in a while before this game, I wouldn't make this assumption yet. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/smiley.gif" alt=":)" title="Smiley" class="smiley" />

-- Simon

[mobius]

you guys chatted in IRC that you didn't like PMing but Clam didn't put it in his rules that I recall. I thought it could make the game more interesting even if harder. I sort of expected the rouges might pull something like NaOH mentioned in the first place that's why I suggested it.

I don't think it will be a problem however, since most of you seem to be totally against it.

[Clam]

The goofy smiling sun sets on Day 1, and night falls.

Votes haven't changed since the last update, except for one vote that's since been retracted:
ccexplore: 2 votes (Simon, NaOH)
NaOH: 1 vote (Ramon)
Ramon: 1 vote (RubiX)

A majority vote was not reached today. So no one shall be munched tonight, and the clam goes hungry.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/alr0f3d48l7nuxy/sadclam.png?dl=1" alt="" class="bbc_img" />
You sit around the fire discussing and arguing for a while, but eventually realise it's no use. Downcast (or relieved!), you head back to the sandcastles for a nervous night's sleep.

---

The rogues may now convene and decide who doesn't make it back to their sandcastle tonight! http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/devil.gif" alt=":evil:" title="Evil" class="smiley" />
The scooper may now pick another player to learn the role of.
And the moderator may now chew over the rules for a moment, which will be nice since he has no lemmings to munch! Expect another post in the next few hours 8()

Day 2 dawns in 48 hours, or 24 if the rogues and scooper have made their choices by then.

[Clam]

Some rule clarifications, which hopefully don't amount to amendments:

- PMs about the game in progress are banned, except between rogues. (This isn't technically enforceable, as I've mentioned). [edit: late-night rant removed]

- After the deciding vote, you may continue public discussion until I post to mark the end of the day. This was essentially implied when I said:

If a majority is reached at any time, I will consider that as final, even if votes change again before I check the thread.

since voting is part of the public discussion. I'll keep these posts to a consistent time of day as far as I possibly can, so you can work around this.

- 8()

[mobius]

I don't care about the rules and I'm not arguing but I'd just like some explanation:
I really don't understand why PMing is considered so bad. How will it spoil the game? I don't see what "harm" PMing would do other than possibly make the game more difficult/add more psychology to it.

In any case, this way, it's less work/attention I have to devote to the game.

[Clam]

Embarrassingly enough, I don't have a ready answer for that. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/embarrassed.gif" alt=":-[" title="Embarrassed" class="smiley" /> All I can really say is that, AFAIK, it's normal not to allow PMs in online mafia.

Anyway, the time to discuss this is after the game. For now, it's night. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/scared.gif" alt=":scared:" title="Scared" class="smiley" />

- 8()

[GigaLem]

*wolf howl in the distance*
*looks out the window*
I just know that something is going on

[Clam]

It turns out everyone made it back to their sandcastle after all. But somebody won't be getting out of theirs this morning:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qcnn57qx2m7twmw/night1-kill.png?dl=1" alt="" class="bbc_img" />

Somewhere under there is NaOH's sandcastle. She was buried alive early in the night, and by morning it was too late to save her. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/sad.gif" alt=":(" title="Sad" class="smiley" />

It must have taken two lemmings to shift all that sand in one night! Who could have perpetrated such a horrible act? Why did they pick the poor little bunny beach-bum as their victim? And where did they get that off-coloured sand from? The bums demand answers!

---

Residents of Clamifornia Beach as of Day 2:
Simon
RubiX
NaOH Killed Night 1
Giga
geoo
möbius
Ramon
ccexplore

---

You may now discuss in public and place your votes. 4 votes are needed for munching. Day 2 ends in 72 hours, maximum. If a majority vote is reached, I'll close it off at the same time of day as this post (0700 GMT/UTC).

[geoo]

Hmm, so our former game-master is dead now, that's not very nice.

Anyway, to get things started, I accuse RubiX. We need to get someone lynched today either way.

[Simon]

I've skimmed through the thread to psych myself, and would like to accuse geoo for now.

He has made more speculations on innocence than everybody else, and tried a test lynch with an elaborate apology.

As a coincidence, geoo also found the min-skill solution to Beach 9 via trigger-happy use of the filler (so almost sand pourer) to release an attractor, just to delay the release further. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" />

-- Simon

[RubiX]

Naoh http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/sad.gif" alt=":(" title="Sad" class="smiley" />   

Yes I do find the accusations coming from geoo very random.
Would someone want to put themselves into the spotlight so much if they were bad though.
I guess i havent played enough of this game to know how people think.

What are your thoughts on him being so vocal for lynching, before I throw an accusation that way too.

[mobius]

This is not good. For reasons I will not disclose, I have a feeling NaOH was the scooper.  http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/sad.gif" alt=":(" title="Sad" class="smiley" />

I second the nomination for Rubix. I'll write more later when I have time.

As a coincidence, geoo also found the min-skill solution to Beach 9 via trigger-happy use of the filler (so almost sand pourer) to release an attractor, just to delay the release further. http://www.lemmingsforums.com/Smileys/lemmings/tongue.gif" alt=":P" title="Tongue" class="smiley" />

Clam, is this an actual thing that you might do? That is use; vague/and or not so vague clues to give hints? I'm assuming it isn't.

[geoo]

Ok, so maybe I should explain the things I've done so far.

So first I said I suspect Giga is innocent. I don't actually have any feeling on whether he's good or evil. I just wanted to make a statement out of the blue that seemed to have no basis so maybe the mafia would suspect that I'm the scooper, and then kill me during the following night, thus sparing the life of the real scooper.

Then I thirded the accusation against ccexplore, only to pull it back later. As already said, this was an experiment to see whether somebody would bandwagon, trying to get ccexplore killed for real (after the 4th vote for ccexplore I would have immediately pulled back my vote. Because that's not possible while I'm asleep, I pulled it back before I went to bed). Such a person giving the 4th vote to ccexplore would probably be evil, and it'd also give evidence for ccexplore being good, as most of us agreed that killing no-one would be better and only the mafia would have interest in getting someone (innocent) killed.

Now I'm accusing RubiX in the same vein Ramon was accusing NaOH to stir some discussion, but also to increase the chances of someone dying today (we need to get someone lynched, and I rather have me start a bandwagon than someone else because I can trust myself, but then that argument applies to anyone).

As for the scooper, unless he checked NaOH or was NaOH, I wonder whether it might be worth revealing yourself now. Definitely if you know that our bandwagon is going in the wrong direction, or if you're getting votes; maybe not if you happen to know that the bandwagon that we got going is going in the right direction. We'd get information about two more people, narrowing down our choices quite a bit, while things are getting more dangerous from now one (one lynch and another mafia kill before the scooper gets another piece of information).

Having (n-2) on someone is always scary, as the mafia might just team up and get the kill done. That's what I mean with the format being scary.

EDIT: 1. I just accused RubiX as I personally find his behaviour suspicious, though I'm fine with someone else too.

2. Having someone verified to be good would been nice, as they could just start a bandwagon and we know that it's at least without bad interests. If mobius' suspicion is right that NaOH was the scooper (re-reading the comments, I see hints like 'I'm digging this beach', etc), we might have reason to believe that Ramon is indeed innocent. Therefore I'd be interested to hear his opinion/accusation, and then maybe have that be a bandwagon instead (I'd gladly change my vote there).