Elements Mafia 75 - by rob77dp

[killsdazombies]

...

no lynch (2) - worldwideweb3, shockcannon
worldwideweb3 (4) - MasterWalks, Linkcat, killsdazombies, Naesala
MasterWalks (2) - Coffeeditto, PlayerOa
shockcannon (1) - kaempfer13

I believe this is the current vote count, and with 4 in favor of your death you could say the gun IS against your head

[worldwideweb3]

...

no lynch (2) - worldwideweb3, shockcannon
worldwideweb3 (4) - MasterWalks, Linkcat, killsdazombies, Naesala
MasterWalks (2) - Coffeeditto, PlayerOa
shockcannon (1) - kaempfer13

I believe this is the current vote count, and with 4 in favor of your death you could say the gun IS against your head

But I can no lynch and am not forced to lynch someone. Others can hope on to no lynch too

[MasterWalks]

@Oa, why would you rather leave your vote on me? You scumreading me? If so, why? I thought i was just a parking lot.

Lack of better options, tbh. I'm not scumreading you per se, but as of my reads list you're a n- in my book, mostly due to what I view as meaningless tunneling.

Fair. Might be meaningless but honestly i think its the best lead we got. And yea im tunneling, but I can be persuaded to vote someone else.

mw, why would you clear cal if w3 flips town? Does the same apply vice versa?

Because that means my theory on GN vig is false. Yea sure, vise versa. I might be more inclined to Cal as w3 is actually posting. But W3 didnt want to lynch GN, and no lynch helps maf more than town and he believes in no lynch.. So im basing this on his opinions.


Y'all give me a better option. This tunnel has exits. Shock is really not a better option. Kae might be an option but thats just because he seems confused and he normally doesnt. So based on my mathematical theory of (serp+w3+cal)/ N= Mafia; the team is W3, Cal, Serp

N= not wanting to vig gn

[kaempfer13]

MW this is a very unusual case where consistently no lynching is actually correct, because the number of gns around disproportionally increases over time. by the time we reach lylo this way over 70% of players will likely have had at least one peek.

[MasterWalks]

MW this is a very unusual case where consistently no lynching is actually correct, because the number of gns around disproportionally increases over time. by the time we reach lylo this way over 70% of players will likely have had at least one peek.

Ok. I will admit not thinking of the GNs increasing.
But wouldnt that be more important later in the game? shouldnt we be lynching now before the GN numbers grow? Actual questions, im not arguing.

[worldwideweb3]

MW this is a very unusual case where consistently no lynching is actually correct, because the number of gns around disproportionally increases over time. by the time we reach lylo this way over 70% of players will likely have had at least one peek.

Ok. I will admit not thinking of the GNs increasing.
But wouldnt that be more important later in the game? shouldnt we be lynching now before the GN numbers grow? Actual questions, im not arguing.

If u lynch now on some bad reads where the person is not too likely to be maf, you’re decreasing number of future Potential GNs

[kaempfer13]

well it would be best to stick to the plan all the way through. A hybrid might be worse than either approach. Since we dont really have a clear poe right now an earlier lynch is slightly worse, as it decreases the number of people that can become gn. But i would say stick to one approach.

[worldwideweb3]

There’s no point in no lynching for a lot of days in a row. But on Day 1, there’s often not enough info to warrant a lynch, coupled w the GN stuff it’s just better to hold out but up to yall, I’m out now for the day.

[iancudorinmarian]

no lynch (2) - worldwideweb3, shockcannon
worldwideweb3 (5) - MasterWalks, Linkcat, killsdazombies, Naesala, iancudorinmarian
MasterWalks (2) - Coffeeditto, PlayerOa
shockcannon (1) - kaempfer13

I see train on w3, I hop on.

[MasterWalks]

If u lynch now on some bad reads where the person is not too likely to be maf, you’re decreasing number of future Potential GNs

Uhh, this is backwards ass thinking and if you truly believe this then we wont be lynching anyone until people hardclaim GN, then we hope it wasnt a maf spreading misinformation and we have to extend the game by another day just to kill them.

well it would be best to stick to the plan all the way through. A hybrid might be worse than either approach. Since we dont really have a clear poe right now an earlier lynch is slightly worse, as it decreases the number of people that can become gn. But i would say stick to one approach.

I get ya. I do believe in a hybrid tho. I think lynching up until D3 and then No Lynching unless we get hard GN claims.


I am very against this mindset of no lynching= more GNs. Didnt scum!serp M A T H E M A T I C A L L Y prove that getting up to even 4 active GNs is pretty slim?

[kaempfer13]

that was assuming 2+people die per day

[kaempfer13]

also your approach doesnt make any sense. lynching now and then no lynching slims down the pool of people that can become gn fast as well as the number of kills scum has to make. stopping doesnt make sense at all. If hybrid then no lynch first.