[S] Fallout Mafia - Game Over - Mafia Wins

[wam]

Chicken Fish, if we mislynch today, we would be at mylo tomorrow rather than lylo. Fairly big difference! Also thats assuming that no one gets killed in all of the chaos tonight, it does also preclude the possiblity of one townine acting as vig.

FOS at chicken fish as he should know this, Also the vote on FAOT seems odd as FAOT strikes me as pretty townie.

Snark has been acting slightly scummy and I would be happy with a Snark lynch but will hold off voting so that we don't accidentally end the day quickly.

Trading mechanics

The large majority of the complaints about trading have been about how scum could manipulate it. This is true of all systems suggested and will probably be true of all possible systems! FAOT's system does seem to be the simplest and least likely to allow scum to build up to massive weapons. I would suggest 2 trades being allowed.

The final point is that we shouldn't really care whether we are open or not, the same applies to whether to say what you want or are selling. The reason for this is as follows.

X says I have scrap available

Y says I have leather available

In thread mod says X gave an item to Y
In thread mod says Y gave an item to X

Its fairly obvious that X wanted leather, else why would he want to trade with Y. If Y doesn't do another trade he clearly wanted scrap, as hes not trying to get rid of it.

This is even more obvious the other way,

X says I want scrap

Y says I want leather

In thread mod says X gave an item to Y
In thread mod says Y gave an item to X

Obvious what each one got.

I have already said I am pro trading.

[CaptainFinglass]

@wam- The problem (as I see it) with your idea is we have no way of knowing if scum actually trade what they say they will. Two people could post, one saying they want scrap and one saying they want leather. All we'll know is "Person X traded with Person Y." If those people are scum, they could have traded something else and we'd have no idea.

[wam]

@finglass

That is a problem with all suggested systems! Im just saying town can't hide trades.

[Chickenfish]

Chicken Fish, if we mislynch today, we would be at mylo tomorrow rather than lylo. Fairly big difference! Also thats assuming that no one gets killed in all of the chaos tonight, it does also preclude the possiblity of one townine acting as vig.

FOS at chicken fish as he should know this, Also the vote on FAOT seems odd as FAOT strikes me as pretty townie.

I didn't actually know that - mylo isn't a term I was familiar with. Back in the day (3? years ago) it was assumed that you wouldn't no lynch, so lylo was used. Now that I think about it that lylo was a dumb thing to call it. Either way my point stands. Being at mylo is not a favourable position for town.
Secondly, that's the problem with all this trade strategising. The person who analyses the most trading strategies and says 'this one is least favourable to scum' is seen as townie, when it's actually just a total null tell. Other than the trade strategy (which he attempted to cut off discussion on with the demand for a vote), what has FAOT actually done to make you think he's town?

Snark has been acting slightly scummy and I would be happy with a Snark lynch but will hold off voting so that we don't accidentally end the day quickly.

I don't understand this logic from anybody. This early on, if Snark was hammered we'd pretty much conclusively have one scum, probably 2. Being timid with your voting at this doesn't help anybody but scum, as there's an opportunity for them to spread wine.

Trading mechanics
...

"We should only trade one or two items" isn't really a plan at all. Based on the items that are favourable for town to craft D1, they'd probably only need one or two trades anyway. Scum are the ones who'll be trying to power up superfast. Restricting trading actually makes it harder to catch scum, because excessive trading from early stages is a scum tell IMO.

[ForAllOfThis]

@wam: The reason that I suggested not requesting items, is because the items requested might not actually be on offer. By giving up that information scum could take an informative guess at what you might be making. Then if you trade for something else because desired your item is not on offer, they know you've changed plans. As a result you might make yourself a really good target.

My plan effectively involves people waiting to put items up for sale (as these items are the only ones that can be traded) and then start trading for what you want. That way you can change plans based on what people are offering, and not have scum know you might not have crafted the item you wanted to. I hope that makes sense.

@Chickenfish:
1. I said I disliked your voting pattern (on-off-on), not your reasons for voting. You seem to have over-reacted to that quite badly.
2. Mislynch results in two deaths puts us at 5-3, that's mylo not lylo. Although it's typical to NL at mylo, I wouldn't suggest it in this game when an extra NK is entirely possible.
3. I hadn't declared myself leader, but I see no-one else jumping up to get things moving. I have no desire to get to 24 hours till deadline, with little discussion about who to lynch, no items traded and us being generally in a bad position. I have no wish to see the day end abruptly either which is why I suggested no-one else voted for Snark.

Your idea for player consensus is ok but it'll lead to very little trading. We struggled to decide amongst us whether trading is a good idea, and now we're struggling to decide how to trade. Everyone is going to know who is trading what with who anyway, so if players see a trade that looked suspicous, then vote for one of the players making the trade and give your reasoning why. If other people agree, that person will then be lynched.

Ninjaed: Putting a vote down is to encourage discussion, not cut it off. If someone has a better trading plan then they can vote no and propose that plan. My proposal is not set in stone either, it can be modified or changed if we feel the process can be made more efficiently in our favor.

[Snark]

@wam: The reason that I suggested not requesting items, is because the items requested might not actually be on offer. By giving up that information scum could take an informative guess at what you might be making. Then if you trade for something else because desired your item is not on offer, they know you've changed plans. As a result you might make yourself a really good target.

My plan effectively involves people waiting to put items up for sale (as these items are the only ones that can be traded) and then start trading for what you want. That way you can change plans based on what people are offering, and not have scum know you might not have crafted the item you wanted to. I hope that makes sense.

@Chickenfish:
1. I said I disliked your voting pattern (on-off-on), not your reasons for voting. You seem to have over-reacted to that quite badly.
2. Mislynch results in two deaths puts us at 5-3, that's mylo not lylo. Although it's typical to NL at mylo, I wouldn't suggest it in this game when an extra NK is entirely possible.
3. I hadn't declared myself leader, but I see no-one else jumping up to get things moving. I have no desire to get to 24 hours till deadline, with little discussion about who to lynch, no items traded and us being generally in a bad position. I have no wish to see the day end abruptly either which is why I suggested no-one else voted for Snark.

Your idea for player consensus is ok but it'll lead to very little trading. We struggled to decide amongst us whether trading is a good idea, and now we're struggling to decide how to trade. Everyone is going to know who is trading what with who anyway, so if players see a trade that looked suspicous, then vote for one of the players making the trade and give your reasoning why. If other people agree, that person will then be lynched.

Ninjaed: Putting a vote down is to encourage discussion, not cut it off. If someone has a better trading plan then they can vote no and propose that plan. My proposal is not set in stone either, it can be modified or changed if we feel the process can be made more efficiently in our favor.

With your trading system, it'd be private what is being traded back and forth. So how could anyone find a trade that looks suspicious.
Player Y: I need a leather. Player X: I'll trade with you.
Player X gave an item to Player Y. Player Y gave an item to Player X.
Player B: I need a leather. Player A: I'll trade with you.
Player A gave an item to Player B. Player B gave an item to Player A.
Player P: I need a leather. Player M: I'll trade with you.
Player M gave an item to Player P. Player P gave an item to Player M.

Which one of these trades look suspicious to you, FAOT?

[ForAllOfThis]

It wouldn't be like that though. I've already said no-one will be saying what they need (is anyone reading my posts?). I hate player X Y Z, so I'm going to use real people in the thread as examples instead. Here is how it will work

Snark: I have two leathers for sale.
FAOT: I have one chemicals for sale.
Timm: I have two scrap for sale.
Chickenfish: I have one fusioncell for sale.

Only these items that have been made public can be traded. So If I then decide to trade one leather for one of my chemicals with you Snark then we see this

Snark sends an Item to FAOT.
FAOT sends an item to Snark.

Then we know that I traded a chemical for one of your leathers. This is why you don't say 'I need material X'. You can only trade items that you've put up for sale. Do you get it now?

[Snark]

I understand it better now, yes. But I still don't see how it conceals any info. Once people see that I sent an item to you, they'll know I wanted your chemicals. If you send chemicals back to me, then you and I will get what we want and stop trading. Scum will be able to tell that we traded successfully and will know what we traded. If you send my leather back to me, then you and I will have to repost our for sale leather and chemicals and scum will know that you didn't need leather.

I'm failing to see how your system conceals any info. Or how it would work effectively with a trade limit, as lots of mistrades would occur.

[ForAllOfThis]

It conceals the other items that we have. Scum know what's been traded, but without knowing the other items we have there is no way of them knowing what is being built.

First you wrongly criticise it for concealing trades so we cant see what is suspicous, now your criticising it for not concealing trades. Your leaving me very confused.

[Snark]

It conceals the other items that we have. Scum know what's been traded, but without knowing the other items we have there is no way of them knowing what is being built.

Every trading system conceals the other items one has. Unless you say "I have a chemical, and I need a scrap, and my other items are blah, blah, blah, and blah".


[quote="ForAllOfThis"First you wrongly criticise it for concealing trades so we cant see what is suspicous, now your criticising it for not concealing trades. Your leaving me very confused. [/quote]

I'm not in favor of trading systems where two people trade back and forth multiple times in order to try and give the right thing to each other, just because no one wants to say what they need in thread to conceal trades. It makes scum trading with scum too powerful.

I'm criticizing your system for claiming to conceal trades, when it doesn't at all. Your system, as I explained before, is basically equivalent to saying "I have x, and will trade it for y" because after the trade it will be easy to tell whether the trade was successful or not by whether the same people try to trade the same items again with other people.

I think everyone should be allowed exactly 1 or 2 open trades by stating "I need x, and will offer y for it". It cuts down on the mistrades that will inevitably result if people start trading with each other before both of them know whether they actually want the other person's items.

[Chickenfish]

@wam: The reason that I suggested not requesting items, is because the items requested might not actually be on offer. By giving up that information scum could take an informative guess at what you might be making. Then if you trade for something else because desired your item is not on offer, they know you've changed plans. As a result you might make yourself a really good target.

My plan effectively involves people waiting to put items up for sale (as these items are the only ones that can be traded) and then start trading for what you want. That way you can change plans based on what people are offering, and not have scum know you might not have crafted the item you wanted to. I hope that makes sense.

This is a good point. It's also quite hard for scum to organise trading with one another this way, as if they put up a fake offer and reject a similar trade from someone else they'll get themselves in trouble.
However, as I said before, coming up with a good trading plan doesn't clear you in my books. So far the only thing resembling scum hunting I've seen from you is either protecting Snark or reacting to my accusations of you, so my vote stays.

@Chickenfish:
1. I said I disliked your voting pattern (on-off-on), not your reasons for voting. You seem to have over-reacted to that quite badly.
2. Mislynch results in two deaths puts us at 5-3, that's mylo not lylo. Although it's typical to NL at mylo, I wouldn't suggest it in this game when an extra NK is entirely possible.
3. I hadn't declared myself leader, but I see no-one else jumping up to get things moving. I have no desire to get to 24 hours till deadline, with little discussion about who to lynch, no items traded and us being generally in a bad position. I have no wish to see the day end abruptly either which is why I suggested no-one else voted for Snark.

1. My voting pattern being on-off-on is completely in line with observations you agree with though. My first vote was semi-RVS, semi-put pressure on because I'd noticed scumminess. After I got as much as I could from that, I removed the vote. Then Snark was actually scummy (which you and others have also noticed), so I voted him. You're acting like me using my vote to put pressure on scummy players is scummy. I find it quite scummy of you. Hence the reaction.
2. So, despite a terminology difference (that has already been pointed out), you agree with what I said? I don't have a problem with that (in a vacuum), but it's a weird way to format your post seeing as it's between 2 things that are defenses/arguments towards me.
3. You're still missing the point, really. It's good that you want to get the restricted trading that scum will be forced to comply with going, but in the 24 hours you've given us to discuss it, we would be forced to discuss all things trade strategy and no things scumhunting. Furthermore, it seems there is a consensus in general (from the active players), so I don't like that you essentially tried to force us to talk about a topic that, at the end of the day, won't help us catch sum.

The flipside to the mylo coin is this:
D1, Lynch scum today. They can't trade usefulness to a buddy pre-death because then their buddy will get caught. Mafia still probably only have 1 NK. 6-2 after N1.
D2a, best case. Lynch scum. Mafia only have 1 NK. 5-1 going into D3. Pretty upsetting if we can't win from here.
D2b, middling case. Lynch town. Mafia only have 1 NK still. 4-2. Mylo, potentially lylo, going into D3.
D2c, Worst case. Lynch town, mafia get enough items to get an extra kill. 3-2 (lylo) going into D3

Notice how to have any chance of winning, we need to start figuring out who scum are? Farrrrr to much focus on trading from you.

Your idea for player consensus is ok but it'll lead to very little trading. We struggled to decide amongst us whether trading is a good idea, and now we're struggling to decide how to trade. Everyone is going to know who is trading what with who anyway, so if players see a trade that looked suspicous, then vote for one of the players making the trade and give your reasoning why. If other people agree, that person will then be lynched.

Thank you for at least acknowledging my suggestion. I do think yours is better, but I also think we need to start looking more solidly for scum.

It conceals the other items that we have. Scum know what's been traded, but without knowing the other items we have there is no way of them knowing what is being built.

Every trading system conceals the other items one has. Unless you say "I have a chemical, and I need a scrap, and my other items are blah, blah, blah, and blah".


[quote="ForAllOfThis"First you wrongly criticise it for concealing trades so we cant see what is suspicous, now your criticising it for not concealing trades. Your leaving me very confused.

I'm not in favor of trading systems where two people trade back and forth multiple times in order to try and give the right thing to each other, just because no one wants to say what they need in thread to conceal trades. It makes scum trading with scum too powerful.

I'm criticizing your system for claiming to conceal trades, when it doesn't at all. Your system, as I explained before, is basically equivalent to saying "I have x, and will trade it for y" because after the trade it will be easy to tell whether the trade was successful or not by whether the same people try to trade the same items again with other people.

I think everyone should be allowed exactly 1 or 2 open trades by stating "I need x, and will offer y for it". It cuts down on the mistrades that will inevitably result if people start trading with each other before both of them know whether they actually want the other person's items.[/quote]Snark I really don't think you're getting it. Where in FAOT's plan do people trade back and forth multiple times? And where did he claim it conceals trades? How does "I have x, and will trade for y" prevent scum from secretly trading with each other? Not that FAOT's does, but it's more refined and useful than your suggestion.
Also, do you think FAOT is scummy/towny because of his suggestions? If this isn't going through your mind, you're actively lurking.

[Snark]

Snark I really don't think you're getting it. Where in FAOT's plan do people trade back and forth multiple times? And where did he claim it conceals trades? How does "I have x, and will trade for y" prevent scum from secretly trading with each other? Not that FAOT's does, but it's more refined and useful than your suggestion.
Also, do you think FAOT is scummy/towny because of his suggestions? If this isn't going through your mind, you're actively lurking.

In FAOT's plan, people start trading with each other without knowing beforehand whether the receiver even wants/needs what the sender is giving. If the receiver doesn't want it, he has to send it back or keep it. Either way, the receiver is going to need to trade again in order to get the item(s) he/she really wanted. This strategy creates mistrades which require more trades. Possibly with the same person again or other people, but more trades than are necessary, giving scum better odds than us, imo.

He said/implied it conceals trades here:

@wam: The reason that I suggested not requesting items, is because the items requested might not actually be on offer. By giving up that information scum could take an informative guess at what you might be making. Then if you trade for something else because desired your item is not on offer, they know you've changed plans. As a result you might make yourself a really good target.

The information is going to be given up no matter what, unless we allow the possibility of mistrading by someone starting a trade (by giving an item) because they want what the receiver has, but the receiver didn't ask for what the giver is giving.

It doesn't prevent scum from secretly trading with each other. No strategy (besides not trading at all) can prevent this.

I think FAOT and trineroks are scummy. I think you (CF) and possible Tim are town. I currently have no other reads.

[ForAllOfThis]

@Snark: It's clear to me that you just don't seem to understand what I'm suggesting. At no point in my plan have I said that the reciever doesn't know what is being recieved. This is not concealed trading. It's quite possible your getting my plan mixed up with timms (in which he suggested we conceal trades as much as possible). It doesn't conceal what items you are trading but it doesn't let scum know if you change your mind because you can't trade for what you are looking for. For example, everyone puts up a list of what they offer. Only those items on offer can be traded (and they should be publically discussed about being traded). Lets go back to this situation:

Snark: I have two leathers for sale.
FAOT: I have one chemicals for sale.
Timm: I have two scrap for sale.
Chickenfish: I have one fusioncell for sale.

Lets say in this scenario I want gunpowder to make a boobytrap. No-one is trading gunpowder so I can no longer make a boobytrap, but I have a battery (none of the other players know this) so I change my mind, and decide to trade for chickenfish's fusion cell instead and make a stealthboy to help protect me tonight. I would say "Chickenfish are you willing to trade your fusion cell for my chemicals?" And he would reply Yes or No. This way scum won't get two bits of information (what people want and what is actually traded) but will only be able to know what is actually traded.

Say for example in the above scenario that Tim is scum (I'm not saying he is scum), if I had declared I was looking for gunpowder he could probably assume that I have more of it. Then when I can't get it and have to trade for a fusion cell instead, he can probably assume I have a battery or another fusion cell so then he knows that I have gunpowder and batterys/fusion cells. If however I don't say I want gunpowder and just see what is on offer, then scum might only be able to know that I have some gunpowder.

I cannot explain this any simpler than I am right now. So this will be final explanation of the system to you, because I feel there is nothing else I can give.

@Chickenfish: I chose 24 hours so that we can move past talking about trading as fast as possible and we can get moving on doing some trading and discussing who we actually think is scum and want to lynch. There seemed to be a general consesus for the plan I put forward so I didn't think their would be an issue with putting on a time constraint. Obviously if I only get a few votes on it within the 24, or even a reasonable opposition, I'm not going to go ahead and start trading without support. I just feel the longer we talk about this, the less time we have on deciding on who we want to lynch.

With regard to your suggestion about me not scum-hunting, I have suggested that both you and Snark have pinged me in different ways. Snark for being very eager to trade and you for your strange vote patterns. I can't comment much about your vote on me without it being OMGUS, but I do feel it was a slight over-reaction on your part to a gut-instinct mention. I'd usually expact that sort of response from someone who is hiding something.

[Snark]

I cast my vote in favor of the strategy FAOT is suggesting. Thank you for putting up with my utter inability to understand what you meant until now.

[An Enraged Platypus]

I'm against trading whatsoever until we have a better feel for who is scum and who is not, on the basis that it seems geared towards equipping scum to kill rather than defending town. However, if we must trade early on then FAOT's plan seems the most reasonably enforceable pattern for fair trades/ minimisation of scams.

[CaptainFinglass]

@finglass

That is a problem with all suggested systems! Im just saying town can't hide trades.

Fair point. This is why I should not attempt to reason through this stuff at six in the morning.

@Chickenfish - You bring up a good point. We're spending far more time talking about trading than we are scumhunting. The point of the game is to get scum, which we won't really figure out from only discussing how we're going to orchastrate trades.

At this rate, we're going to be arguing over trading for so long that when Night falls, we'll have only arguements about how we should trade (with, as far as I can see, the exception of CF and FOAT going at it) to go off of D2, and the scum are basically going to get a free NK, because we'll have been so busy trying to figure out trading that we neglected to try and scumhunt. In this regard, so far FOAT's strategy for trade is the best one I've seen, so I'd be content to go with that and move on to finding the scum.

[Chickenfish]

I'm against trading whatsoever until we have a better feel for who is scum and who is not, on the basis that it seems geared towards equipping scum to kill rather than defending town. However, if we must trade early on then FAOT's plan seems the most reasonably enforceable pattern for fair trades/ minimisation of scams.

Mafia NK: Hunter Killer Drone: One member of the mafia can use the HKD as their action item that night. It cannot be used twice a night even if you use jet. Your target takes 7 damage and if they are killed then all of their crafted items value higher then 4 are destroyed. All of their other items and materials are taken by the player who used the HKD. Using Psycho does not affect the damage of the HKD, and using the HKD does not prevent self mutilation of someone on psycho withdrawal.

(underlining mine).
FoS: An Enraged Platypus
Pretty self explanatory why no trade is terrible.

@Chickenfish - You bring up a good point. We're spending far more time talking about trading than we are scumhunting. The point of the game is to get scum, which we won't really figure out from only discussing how we're going to orchastrate trades.

At this rate, we're going to be arguing over trading for so long that when Night falls, we'll have only arguements about how we should trade (with, as far as I can see, the exception of CF and FOAT going at it) to go off of D2, and the scum are basically going to get a free NK, because we'll have been so busy trying to figure out trading that we neglected to try and scumhunt. In this regard, so far FOAT's strategy for trade is the best one I've seen, so I'd be content to go with that and move on to finding the scum.

Well then, care to provide anything?

[ForAllOfThis]

Almost 24 hours with no activity what-so-ever. There seems to be a general favor towards using my method of trading so I'm going to go ahead and roll with it, in the hope it actually generates some discussion. I'd recommend stating what you have for trade on a new line and making it underlined. Here's what I'm trading:

I have 1 battery for sale.

I'll be waiting to see what else people have for sale before making/accepting offers.

[Snark]

I have 1 chemical for sale

[trineroks]

I'm comfortable with FAOT's system. We really should step up and start trading and craft 4 < items and prevent Maf from absorbing our inventory.

I have 1 gunpowder for sale!

[Chickenfish]

@trineroks - that's all you've got to say about everything that's going on?

To make it easier to keep track of, I say people add their names to this list:

FAOT - 1 battery
Snark - 1 chemical
treinroks - 1 gunpowder
Chickenfish - 1 scrap

It seems we already have an imbalance though, with FAOT's item having a value of 2. If we're putting up 2 value worth of stuff, I'm happy to update my list.

[Snark]

CF, will you trade my chemicals for your scrap?

[CaptainFinglass]

I think I have this figured out.

I have one Fuel for sale.

[Chickenfish]

CF, will you trade my chemicals for your scrap?

Snark - given that we're playing with CaptainFinglass as well, CF probably isn't the best
And no go on the trade, sorry. I can't see a need for chemicals in my near future.
Are people happy to extend this listing to 2 value worth of items?

I think I have this figured out.

I have one Fuel for sale.

By "this" do you mean the trading system, or have you reached True Enlightenment about deeper things here?
MILD SEGUE: still waiting on some actual analysis from you Cap'n.

[TheMaskedGecko]

Sorry for inactivity. I have 2 scrap for sale. There will be a better post later

[Chickenfish]

Are people happy to extend this listing to 2 value worth of items?

Sorry for inactivity. I have 2 scrap for sale. There will be a better post later

I guess that answers that! I'll still wait for consensus before posting my second, though...
Not too much later, I hope

FAOT - 1 battery
Snark - 1 chemical
treinroks - 1 gunpowder
Chickenfish - 1 scrap
CaptainFinglass - 1 fuel
TMG - 2 scrap

[BoomFrog]

Vtotals:
Snark - 2 - (t1mm01994, CaptianFinGlass)
FAOT - 1 - (Chickenfish)

Not voting: wam, ForAllOfThis, An Enraged Platypus, Snark, trineroks, TheMaskedGecko, JesseScottOwen

Deadline is in 39 hours.

[An Enraged Platypus]

I have three leather to sell.

[Snark]

TMG, will you trade one of your scrap for my chemicals or both scrap for a fusion cell?

[ForAllOfThis]

Yes chickenfish. The original idea was you could have two items less than 1 value, or a single 2/3 value item up for sale.

So already platypus & snark have broken that. Snark has offered chemicals and fusion cell (4 value) and Platypus has offered 3 value worth of leather. I don't know the reasons but I can't trust whatever reasons they give so:

FoS: Snark & Platypus

[ForAllOfThis]

EBWOP (and off-topic): How fricking cool would a cartoon called Snark & Platypus be?

[trineroks]

Seriously Snark? You just outed almost half your inventory now.

You're really not looking good today. Chemicals and Fusion Cell; it seems to me you'll be first on mafia's shopping list... unless you're scum.

Vote: Snark

Snark is now at L-4, so in the event he is town, mafia won't be able to hammer him.

PS. Why would you make such an obvious slip up like that?

[Snark]

My inventory is 3 leather, 2 scrap, 1 chemical, 1 fusion cell, and 1 gunpowder.

I am willing to trade any of the last 3 items for a scrap.

If I'm scum, then my scum buddies already know my inventory and this information only gives more info to town.
If I'm town, scum now knows that, if they NK me, they can have whichever of the two items (out of chemical, fusion cell, and gunpowder) that I don't trade today.
But scum won't NK me tonight, because I'm under too much suspicion today.
So the next person who has a problem with me sharing the contents of my inventory can shut up.

Good lynch targets for today include anyone who doesn't complete at least one trade. If a person doesn't trade before the deadline, scum will know that that person can't make any item with a 5+ value and thus scum can collect ALL of their items upon their death. It'd be very beneficial to lynch someone who doesn't trade to prevent scum from NKing them.

Dear fellow townies, if I get lynched today, please lynch trineroks tomorrow. He's either scum or townie with literally the worst logic in the world. He has LITERALLY no content in his posts besides baseless accusations. Go back and read his posts if you think I'm exaggerating.
Vote: trineroks

[t1mm01994]

Snark: I'll take the gunpowder for a scrap.

[Snark]

Done. I'm sending my gunpowder to you now.

[Snark]

If you could set up a conditional trade so you don't have to wait for BF to actually PM you with my item, that'd be great.

[t1mm01994]

Working on it

[wam]

I have 1 scrap and 1 chemicals for sale.

Enraged platypus could I trade one or both of the above for 1 or 2 of your leather.

[An Enraged Platypus]

I have 1 scrap and 1 chemicals for sale.

Enraged platypus could I trade one or both of the above for 1 or 2 of your leather.

I'll take one scrap for one leather.

[CaptainFinglass]

I think I have this figured out.

I have one Fuel for sale.

By "this" do you mean the trading system, or have you reached True Enlightenment about deeper things here?
MILD SEGUE: still waiting on some actual analysis from you Cap'n.

By "this" I mean the trading system

Actual analysis stuff: Like I said earlier, I find Snark to be the most suspicious right now, based on how his suggestions for trade would basically turn town into a shopping list and how he seemed to be nailing players on their suggestions and then basically arguing the exact same idea as they did. Also, more suspicious now because he's listed his whole inventory. It feels like he has no fear whatsoever of being NK'd. I don't agree with how he says "scum definitely won't kill me"--how do you know? Do you have a crystal ball that looks into the future, or do you know they won't kill you because you are one? That's what it sounds like to me.

I don't agree with the vote for FAOT--it seems to me he was just trying to sort out a strategy, nothing more. I'm not getting any scummy vibes from him.

@Platypus - Are you willing to trade one of your leathers for my fuel?