Three Way Lylo Mafia!

[MintzMachete]

I blame you for voting stupidly.

[Premier Stalin]

Some reasoning would have been nice. As you normally do. You just went "he's mafia yh" and expected me to believe you.

[MintzMachete]

I figure we will be doing a plurality of these and giving away exact reasoning on a test goes against logic.

Why did you follow him then? so much reasoning.

[Premier Stalin]

Because he wasn't the one making random unfounded accusations. I also would have changed my vote most likely had you not just accused me of being mafia.

[MintzMachete]

wouldn't have mattered.

At least DDP had a reason to vote me.

[Premier Stalin]

At least DDP didn't give me a reason to vote him.

[GGQ]

Just take responsibility for your failures and move on.

Premier, you voted wrong.

Mintz, you provided no case for your vote and put no effort into convincing Premier.

You both lost the game.

[MintzMachete]

That's because i didn't want to give away my rationale because it's useful in later games.

Ah well, my bad.

[andy]

So what was the colour test about? im curious.

[Kennedy]

Originally Posted by GGQ

Just take responsibility for your failures and move on.

Premier, you voted wrong.

Mintz, you provided no case for your vote and put no effort into convincing Premier.

You both lost the game.

charscharschars

[Kennedy]

the color test (and its derivatives - the "favorite ice cream flavor", "lucky number", favorite style of cardigan, etc) is just a reaction test. There's nothing more to it, but you can bull**** reasons based on their answers to push on them - "omg, he claimed blue but blue is a very common favorite color so he's probably just trying to pick something plausible so we don't notice anything out of the ordinary! he must be maf"

It's a terrible tactic and nobody should ever use it.

[andy]

So what would you discuss in this kind of game?

[GGQ]

Originally Posted by MintzMachete

That's because i didn't want to give away my rationale because it's useful in later games.

Ah well, my bad.

You're going to keep losing those later games if you don't explain your voting rationale.

[GGQ]

Originally Posted by andy

So what would you discuss in this kind of game?

I have no idea. A game like this is pretty much up to chance imo. There just isn't enough information available to put together a rational case.

By the way, I'm playing a large game elsewhere atm, so I'm not starting a game for a while.

[CCN]

Originally Posted by GGQ

I have no idea. A game like this is pretty much up to chance imo. There just isn't enough information available to put together a rational case.

By the way, I'm playing a large game elsewhere atm, so I'm not starting a game for a while.

I totally agree, but I would still somehow be sorely tempted for Stalin to be on the losing side >_>

[Duck Duck Pwn]

I think there are SOME relatively ok things you can use in games like this, but ultimately as was said before, it's mostly just chance.

Mafia might be paranoid of coming off as mafia, even if there is no partner to really tie them to. Some of the same signs of active lurking, regular lurking, and co. can apply to varying degrees.

Inexperienced mafia might react extremely poorly to a reaction test in fear of it being legitimate -- but interpreting them is tough at best, and kind of stupid.

Mafia often are either very quick to vote someone so as not to appear passive, as well as force a player that they are controlling to be the hammer, OR to be extremely passive in voting and try to get the hammer themselves. Trying to get people to vote and seeing reasoning for why someone isn't voting could be useful. However, given how short these games are and how easily hammers are made in them, trying to get a reaction can very easily just end up leading to "game over."

That's kind of what I'd try to use, but these kinds of games aren't exactly too serious and are far from sure-fire.

[[Y]]

Reserving a spot in the next small game.

[[Y]]

Originally Posted by [Y]

Reserving a spot in the next small game.

Hi Kennedy.