[S] Fallout Mafia - Game Over - Mafia Wins

[TheMaskedGecko]

I'm tentitavly protrade, although I haven't really thought it through yet. It's mostly because I feel this is going to be quite a dull game if we don't trade.
If anyone is up for trading, I've got some spare scrap.

[TheMaskedGecko]

EBWOP: I really fucked up spelling tentatively. And that annoys me. Pretend it didn't happen.

[t1mm01994]

Vote: TMG
He /really/ screwed up the spelling of tentatively, liek, Gee Willikers, scumtell?
Unvote

In all seriousness though, let's not hammer "trading" but let's think like sensible humans.

STOP POSTING IN-THREAD WHICH ITEMS YOU HAVE. Or anything that indicates that. In fact, FoS to both Snark and TMG for doing so.
Quick explanation: if you die, your items < 4 go to scum. If they know which items belong to who, town becomes a shopping list. Short story shorter; it helps scum.
Do conditional gifts show up to the receiver in any way until the gift is actually processed?

[Snark]

I have some good logic: let's make as many items as possible with value greater than 4. That makes NK's infinitely less profitable to scum.

@TMG what do you need in return?

[BoomFrog]

Do conditional gifts show up to the receiver in any way until the gift is actually processed?

No.

I was under the assumption based on boomfrogs post that he would then tell A what was required for the trade. Boomfrog, could you please clarify this

You will only receive a PM when actually given an item.

Trades are not simultaneous. Do not use "trade" or "offer" in a PM to me, only "give". Let me give a few examples for clarity:

Spoiler:

Alice says in thread: I'd like to trade a scrap for a leather.
Bob says in thread: I'll take that. Give me a scrap and I'll send you a leather right back.
Alice PMs Mod: I give a scrap to Bob
Mod PMs Bob: You received a scrap from Alice.
Mod in thread: Alice gave an item to Bob.
Bob PMs Mod: I give a leather to Alice.
Mod PMs Alice: You received a leather from Bob.
Mod in thread: Bob gave an item to Alice.

More Complex example:

Spoiler:

Alice in thread: I'd like to trade three scrap for three leather.
Bob in thread: I'll do that. We'll trade one by one, you go first.
Alice to Mod: I give Bob three scrap one by one as long as I get a leather back in between each scrap.
Bob to Mod: I give Alice a leather if i get a scrap from her. Do that twice.
Mod to Bob: You received three scrap from Alice and gave her two leather.
Mod to Alice: You gave three scrap to Bob, and received two leather from him.
Mod in thread: Alice gave three items to Bob. Bob gave two items to Alice.
Alice to Mod: Hay, what happened? I was supposed to get three leather.
Mod to Alice: You gave Bob a scrap, then he gave you a leather. That happened again. Then you gave him a scrap and got nothing back so far.
Alice in thread: Hay, Bob stiffed me a leather!
Bob in thread: Yep, I'm keeping it, thanks for the scrap.

[ForAllOfThis]

I agree with Tim. We've got time, theres no need to rush trading but at least we can move on with ideas on how to do it now. There's no need to post a list of what your trading just yet, or what you need.

Snarks 4 person plan makes no sense what so ever to me though. Say we have Scum -> Town -> Town -> Scum -> Scum then the last scum can just swap items around, and we still don't know what is traded. Basically it fails if the last two traders are scum. Snarks second plan is better though even if still flawed. For us to be sure that people were able to create 4 value items it would require complete transparency on what items we have to work out what we can build. With that, scum would know what each town player is building and as a result would still hunt whoever is creating the better items, or have more value items on them.

The only way I can see of controlling it would be to have some sort of trading limit. Everyone can only put X (I was thinking 2) value amount of items up for sale. That way we keep at least 80% of the items we have hidden from scum, will be able to make some trades and scum will struggle to trade amongst each other with those kind of limitations. Only what people put up for exchange can be offered for trade to other people for items they have for sale as well.

Player X puts up 2 leather for sale.
Player Y puts up 1 batterys for sale.

If Player Y wants to make an offer to player X, he can only offer that battery and nothing else. That's the absolute best way I can think of doing it at the moment. If we feel 2 value won't be enough to achieve 4 value items, then we could potentially extend it to 3 or 4 value worth of trading, although we run a lot less risk the lower we have the trading value cap at.

[Snark]

Concerning FAOT's plan:
- Town must trade at least one item apiece in order to craft at least one 5+ value item apiece (unless BoomFrog made mistakes in distribution which he said was possible)
- Allowing limitless trades would allow most townies to get a hold of about 10 value (13 using barter) in items that they want. Townies would mostly make things such as metal armor, booby-traps, stealthboys and small melee weapons such as knives or swords (because they can be used to retaliate). But scum would also get a hold of about 10 value (13 using Barter) and would presumably mostly make items such as plasma rifles, super sledges, and other high end weaponry. Scum would have the advantage of not having to trade what they say they're trading (if they trade with other scum).

Conclusions
1. No trade makes it possible for scum to gain an excessive number of items with every NK. No trade seems to favor scum.
2. Allowing limitless trade seems to favor scum as high end weaponry versus medium armor isn't good odds for town.
3) The optimal number of trades per person is probably 1, 2 or 3. I'd say it's most likely 1 or 2.
4). Town can not prevent scum from trading with each other and lying about what they're trading, but we will have trading records in addition to voting records to base lynches off of on D2 and on.

Final conclusion: I like FAOT's plan, although an argument could be made that 1 trade apiece is better than 2. I don't have a preference.

In any case, I think I only need 1 trade for now so:

Snark requests scrap. Offers an item that isn't scrap or leather. You'll have to tell me it is you want, and I'll tell you whether I am able to give you that item. I'd like to keep as many of my items unknown to scum as possible.

[Chickenfish]

I, too, agree that restricted trading is the way to go.

Snark requests scrap. Offers an item that isn't scrap or leather. You'll have to tell me it is you want, and I'll tell you whether I am able to give you that item. I'd like to keep as many of my items unknown to scum as possible.

You do realise that this statement, combined with future trade request refusals/acceptances tells scum almost exactly what you have?
Or, you're not offering the two materials most people would be trying to obtain so that the only people who take you up on your offer are your buddies so you're free to trade what you want.
Maybe I'm tunnelling, but I'm really not liking you this game.

[t1mm01994]

I still hope that in Snark's case it's impulsiveness + most active... But yeah, there's something I hate in roughly every post
@Whoever said town still are a shopping list after crafting 4+-valued items, I believe that in the rules it states that only items with value under 4 are carried over.
I think I do have a system, but it requires in-thread calling.
Let's make person X trade, my way, with person Y.
1: X says, I need 1 gunpowder in thread.
2: Y gives X one gunpowder, and states this in thread (trade with X in progress; anything that stops others from sending gunpowder, too)
3: X sends to Y his different stock; i.e. if he wants to get rid of Scrap and Leather, and wants to keep all other materials he has, X either sends both and receives back the one Y wanted least, or sends them 1 by 1, which may take some more patience and communication.
4a: Y likes what he sees, and keeps 1; trade made with minimal outside information
4b: Y does not like what he sees and sends it all back, and receives his Gunpowder back.
Oh, and if someone cheats the trade, call him out in thread. 1 for 1 trades aren't that bad afaik.
I'd love someone to come poke this plan to parts, as I didn't think it out as much as I'd like to, but I still believe it's solid.

NOTE: DON'T DO IT YET.

also Thanks for the clarification.

[wam]

Tim

The method seems sound. I would suggest that the defualt course of action is to give several items and then X sends back the ones he doesn't like as this is simpler and less likely to go wrong.

My thoughts for when we start trading are that we pick a deadline back from the end of the day. I.e we will start trading 48 hours before the deadline? That will hopefully prevent us from spending the day disscussing trading mechanics and not actually trading.

[t1mm01994]

2 major problems with sending it all:

1: if you don't get it back, you're arsed if you can't speak in thread.
2: You're letting the other know all your goods you want to trade rather than just one.

To be honest, you sound an awful lot like scum trying to be clever.
1: As soon as the mechanism is made, it doesn't need to be discussed any more, it'll only fill the thread.
2: To make it end of day makes veerrry little sense. "We want time to hunt scum so we'll cut out the last 2 days" just doesn't make as much sense to me.
Relevant: The way you proposed is the easiest way for scum to cheat. Scum give you one item, you give them 3, now they know all you have to offer, and they can either kill you know and take the bad trade and give the other items to whoever

[JesseScottOwen]

Hey guys, I'm going to be in New York this weekend, but I'm going to try to check in and post as often as I can.

I haven't been convinced either way as to how we should trade, but I think these opinions will help us more in scum-hunting than in actual trading and game play.

It looks like it will be a hard game, but I think the record of trades and lynches and NKs will definitely show us a lot. I'm leaning toward no trade, or as little as possible. But, I did wake up freaking early this morning, and am updating from the airport. So my brains are fried.

[t1mm01994]

Note to self: Don't press the Submit button too early.
Continuing where I left off:

Relevant: The way you proposed is the easiest way for scum to cheat. Scum give you one item, you give them 3, now they know all you have to offer, and they can either kill you know and take the bad trade and give the other items to whoever wants the rest of them, or send it back to appear legit and /then/ kill you and take all your possessions, of which they now know roughly what they are.. Whereas at the start of the day, at least you'll have the time to yell about it in thread if you've got cheated in whichever way.
Also

That will hopefully prevent us from spending the day disscussing trading mechanics and not actually trading.

Whut? We should trade more than talk about trading so let's restrict the time available for trades?

I've seen enough here to
Vote: wam

[wam]

Tim

1) why would you not be able to post in the thread that you hadn't got it all back? Anyone who doesn't give it all back deserves to be lynched!

2) Yes but if the other person just wants to find out what you have to trade, they just have to decline the first, 2nd 3rd and so on untill you run out and then say "go on I will take item 1 actually".

This to me suggests that just giving all your willing to trade is the easiest option.

My worry was that we would just go around and around with people suggesting modifications and different mechanisms untill it was the deadline. Yours is alread the 3rd/4ht? mechanism suggested. Im not sure what you mean by "cut the last two days"? All I was suggesting was we have a dealine for when we agree the mechanism and start trading. Your the one who said that anyone who trades before we agree should be lynched, im just trying to speed up the agreement.

If Scum don't return the items you call them out on it in the thread thereby marking them as scum. As for them NK you for the stuff, how do they know that the item they gave you wasnt the final piece for you to make something over value 4, so when the NK you they get almost nothing?

[t1mm01994]

1) Nightfall is why..
2) True that. Just saying it isn't as simple as going "Well this is a good plan because..." because there's downsides to stuff.

And it appears I misread what you said, as you appear to mean that we should start trading 48 hours before deadline now, and pretty much never stop. That much I can agree with.
Unvote
as reasonable post is reasonable.

[wam]

1) that is true although trading can only be done during the day.

It has also ocurred to me that we would know anyway, as the mod posts all trades in the thread, we would see X trades with Y come up and then wouldn't see Y trades with x come up. Therefore if X dies during the night Y is likely to be scummy, or lurking badly.

Also I realise I need to be better at explaining myself, sorry!

[Snark]

Tim's plan is horrible. If two scum trade with each other, they can trade back and forth 2-4 times before looking suspicious with the excuse that they keep on offering stuff that the other doesn't need.

The best plan is for all trades to be transparent and to limit trades to 1 or 2 per person.

I can give chemicals or gunpowder in exchange for the scrap I need.
You happy now, CF?

[t1mm01994]

Wait, y'know. I'm trying to keep myself from lynching your ass, and you go, without any justification, shoot off my plan?
Vote: Snark
No you won't. I'd rather not be part of a shopping list. If you've got some logical reasons why your plan is any better than mine, except for "scum can exploit this", go ahead. Same holds true for your plan, I pointed out how. No response to that was given just a "fu my plan is much better".
In fact, you went ahead, ignored EVERYTHING I SAID SEVERAL TIMES and kept on going with what you did, without justifying it in more than one line.
In my plan, we can use desinformation too. We can ask for random stuff, and just send it straight back. Scum won't know who to kill to get their items, and thus have more effort to collect them. Also, why the ass would scum want to trade back and forth 4 times when they can do it all at once, too? And no they can't, as we can roughly keep track of what's going on by what's getting posted in-thread. Scum can ask for something and receive something else, but hell, that's possible with your plan, too. Scum can ask for 2 chemicals in trade for 2 scrap and trade 2 leather for 2 gunpowder.

Quite frankly, I don't see what your plan does better than mine, except that the one pushing it is even cockier about it.

[Snark]

Your plan allows multiple trades between the same two people. More than likely scum will use this to quickly optimize their inventory to create weaponry.

FAOT's plan, which I agree with, puts a limit on the number of trades per person which prevents scum for trading too much amongst themselves. This plan also tells in thread precisely what items are being traded (except in cases of scum trading with scum). The transparency in this plan will let scum know where items are going, but THE ITEMS THAT ARE MOVING ARE THE ONE"S BEING CRAFTED. Meaning that scum can't tell who to kill to get the items they want.

Sorry for being cocky. I do realize that I'm playing too aggressively in most of these mafia games, but it's hard to change my personality.

[t1mm01994]

There's a difference between playing agressive and plainly ignoring what people are saying. The former is acceptable, even though not always practical. The latter is quite a dickish move which will make me rage, a lot.

There's a problem with both. By saying what you'll offer, they'll know what you have to spare, and as such, what won't be crafted, and as such, what's to be picked up. By not saying what you'll offer, it's harder to track stuff.
Remains true, like I said in my last post: If scum want to trade basically whatever, they can, or you have to severely restrict town too. Any knife that's cutting cuts on 2 sides.
FAOT's idea does seem like the best to me so far, too. Townie cred to that for him.
My vote on you stays, because y'know, you still ignored all that I said and I can't imagine that being a good thing for town, regardless of what I said being a good plan or not.

[Snark]

Townie cred to FAOT of advocating the plan.
Vote stays on Snark for further advocating the plan.

Yeah, that makes sense, Tim. Lots of sense.

[t1mm01994]

Townie cred to FAOT for advocating the plan.
Vote stays on Snark for doing a bunch of random stuffs before any consensus was formed, advising strange stuffs before that (I had voted you before if it wasn't for me not liking to vote the most active player) and being plain old offensive.

[Chickenfish]

I can give chemicals or gunpowder in exchange for the scrap I need.
You happy now, CF?

I tell you you've given away too much info, so you reveal more and I'm supposed to be happy? Or offering a trade that's still unappealing to town D1 so that a buddy can 'accept' your offer and trade freely? Is that what I should be happy about?
On my phone so I'm not sure, but I think I unvoted you. As such
Vote: Snark
All trading plans benefit scum, because items are how scum get stronger, and not trading means scum get stronger from their NKs while town sit back and die faster. The only thing I can think of that may help us catch scum is have all trades completely public, publicly justified and requiring the approval of the masses before they go ahead. That way if there's a mistrade, call out the scum and lynch. While this means scum can still trade with scum (I highly doubt any scheme will avoid this), it means 2 people will have been lying when they plead their cases for trade. More need for scum to lie means more chance of catching them in a lie.
Also let's not forget this is mafia, folks. Trading and crafting is how we can manipulate scum's efficiency at night, but we need to be lynching them of a day, too.
Discussing nothing but trading plans that may have genuine oversights won't help us catch scum. Discussing scum will.
FoS: everyone except t1mm - let's hunt some scum, people!

[Snark]

@Chickenfish
Both you and Tim are voting me, and then advocating the exact same thing that I'm doing/advocating.

Tim votes me for advocating FAOT's plan, and then says he agrees with it himself.
Chickenfish votes me for giving away information, and then suggests that all trades be completely public.

This is nonsense.

[t1mm01994]

Snark, do you read?

Townie cred to FAOT for advocating the plan.
Vote stays on Snark for doing a bunch of random stuffs before any consensus was formed, advising strange stuffs before that (I had voted you before if it wasn't for me not liking to vote the most active player) and being plain old offensive.

Say again I voted you for advocating FAOTs plan, I dare you.

[Chickenfish]

Chickenfish votes me for giving away information, and then suggests that all trades be completely public.

1. Suggesting public justification for single items traded is different to saying "HEY EVERYONE THIS IS MY WHOLE INVENTORY"
2. My initial comment was observing that said reaction was completely illogical as a response to my comments, which you don't even try to address.
3. Like in t1mm's case, there is much more to my vote than you're implying. Trying to dismiss two very legitimate votes as though they are baseless is hardly helping your cause.
4. So defensive and squirmy from so early on...
5. After general criticism of a lack of scum hunting in here, your entire post is a short, weak attempt at defending yourself and nothing else?

[ForAllOfThis]

A lot happened whilst I was at work earlier! Tim's plan was very similar to my original plan (have a sale list and keep all offers secret) but as at least one player pointed out it's quite a complicated plan and I realised it could give scum free reign of trade amonst themselves which was what originally led me to scrap it for the newer one.

@Snark: I agree that editing it to have a number of trades would be acceptable/make more sense (with a 2 value trade cap, some stuff wouldn't be tradable which I hadn't taken into account). We should probably stick with one trade to start with, but if people feel that they need two, to make the items they are after, then I see no problem with increasing it to meet the requirements.

I also dislike that Snark is rushing in to trade. The only reason I can think for doing that is that you've already set up a deal in scum day chat. Otherwise why would you be so eager and confident? It makes me nervous. Not enough to place a vote yet though. Equally making me nervous though is Chickenfish, because I'm getting the impression that he really wants to put a vote down on Snark, seemingly regardless of whatever Snarks alignment might be.

Really though It would be ideal to hear more from Platypus, Trineroks, TMG, JesseScottOwen and CaptainFinglass abit more.

I feel like we're just playing with 5 players at the moment, which is going to make things more awkward when it comes to trading.

[t1mm01994]

Wait, there's more than 5 players in this game? That's news to my ears..

[trineroks]

Snark's proposition of publicly announcing which items he has to offer up to trade bothers me more than anything at this point. Like tim says, this allows scum to see who has what and ultimately makes town a giant "shopping list".

IGMEOY Snark, you're not really looking too good today.

As for FAOT, are you suggesting that if someone proposes to trade 1 item X, which let's say is 2 in value, they should only trade that item throughout the entire game and nothing else?

[Chickenfish]

I also dislike that Snark is rushing in to trade. The only reason I can think for doing that is that you've already set up a deal in scum day chat. Otherwise why would you be so eager and confident? It makes me nervous. Not enough to place a vote yet though. Equally making me nervous though is Chickenfish, because I'm getting the impression that he really wants to put a vote down on Snark, seemingly regardless of whatever Snarks alignment might be.

So you think Snark's acting scummy, I give an explanation why I strongly believe Snark is scum and vote, and that's me putting a vote down regardless of alignment? Please explain.

Really though It would be ideal to hear more from Platypus, Trineroks, TMG, JesseScottOwen and CaptainFinglass abit more.

I feel like we're just playing with 5 players at the moment, which is going to make things more awkward when it comes to trading.

Hmm, interesting motivation here. You accuse Snark of being eager to trade, then your concern about lurkers is because it makes trading worse, not that it makes hard?
FoS: FAOT

[Chickenfish]

EBWOP: phone posting fail. *not that it makes scum hunting hard

[BoomFrog]

Really though It would be ideal to hear more from Platypus, Trineroks, TMG, JesseScottOwen and CaptainFinglass abit more.

Trineroks, JesseScottOwen, and TMG have posted enough to avoid my wrath. Platypus and Captain have been prodded.

[CaptainFinglass]

Sorry! Had to sort out IRL stuff, but will be around to post more from now on.

Having done a (very quick) read through, it seems to me like Snark is the most obviously scummy, but then again he's amoung about four or five people posting, so I haven't seen enough to judge him compared to everyone else. That being said, Major FoS at him for tossing out quite a bit of information about what he has seemingly at random. It's giving me the feeling he thinks he can't be NK'd, which he would think if he were mafia. Also, he suggests what, at best, could be described as creating a "shopping list" which would be a great help to the mafia.

Thus, until anyone convinces me otherwise, Vote: Snark

In regards to trading... I feel like if we did it in small amounts, it would be a help. I'd be cautious about anyone who starts advocating we trade in huge amounts or wanted things like Gunpowder and fuel cells though, at least on day one.

[BoomFrog]

Thus, until anyone convinces me otherwise, Vote: Snark

Please keep votes and other things you want the mod to see on a separate line so they stand out. This applies to all mafia games on these forums FYI. Thank you.

Vtotals:
Snark - 3 - (t1mm01994, Chickenfish, CaptianFinGlass)

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

Deadline is in about 3 days.

[trineroks]

You should take t1mm off the "not voting" section and spell "captain" correctly . Not meaning to be a stickler or anything.

I'm holding back my vote on Snark for a couple reasons:
1. If Snark is somehow scummy town, my vote would place him at L-2 and I wouldn't want scum to so quickly blitz my vote.
2. I'm going to wait and try toget a better read on him. I'm still FoSing him for now, though.
3. We have 3 more days left in D1. Have the lurkers contribute as well so we can get reads from them as well, instead of ending the day earlier by hammering Snark.

[An Enraged Platypus]

OOC :Sorry for not posting, didn't realise the game had actually started.

Not trading sounds reasonable, if we keep everyone as nerfed as possible, the number of kills the Mafia can effect decreases dramatically in the early turns. Once there is some information, then bands of combatants will have a decent chance of pruning Mafia not town.

RE this trading scheme:

1: X says, I need 1 gunpowder in thread.
2: Y gives X one gunpowder, and states this in thread (trade with X in progress; anything that stops others from sending gunpowder, too)
3: X sends to Y his different stock; i.e. if he wants to get rid of Scrap and Leather, and wants to keep all other materials he has, X either sends both and receives back the one Y wanted least, or sends them 1 by 1, which may take some more patience and communication.
4a: Y likes what he sees, and keeps 1; trade made with minimal outside information
4b: Y does not like what he sees and sends it all back, and receives his Gunpowder back.
Oh, and if someone cheats the trade, call him out in thread. 1 for 1 trades aren't that bad afaik.

This is terrible. How can we track what was really traded, or if a trade actually took place? What's to stop someone reporting trade complete and having a big slanging match all day about whether a trade actually completed? What's to stop the Mafia reporting that they're assembling a bunch of protective equipment, making them look like town?

[t1mm01994]

More people bashing my plan!
Ah well. This'll be my last activity until monday night, so I'll be sure to respond to everything.
The thing giving me most shivers atm is trineroks and Captain saying exactly hwat I had said, and Platypus somehow shooting down my plan, when I had taken it down myself yesterday.
Platypus: The current "consensus" is on FAOT's last plan. Look it up, reply to that.
Apart from that though, how do you plan to /solve/ either of the questions posed in that last post?

How can we track what was really traded, or if a trade actually took place? Well, you can't, which is the "beauty" of this plan. The only thing you can do is call someone out on keeping items, which is shown in thread. If you want to ask for Leather, get sent Leather, and send Leather back straight away, all is good. What's to stop someone reporting trade complete and having a big slanging match all day about whether a trade actually completed? Kill the one accused, if town, kill the other?What's to stop the Mafia reporting that they're assembling a bunch of protective equipment, making them look like town?How are you planning on solving this?

[Chickenfish]

@Everyone: so apparently my actual scumhunting detracted from the fact that I also had a suggestion for how to trade.
For reference

The only thing I can think of that may help us catch scum is have all trades completely public, publicly justified and requiring the approval of the masses before they go ahead. That way if there's a mistrade, call out the scum and lynch. While this means scum can still trade with scum (I highly doubt any scheme will avoid this), it means 2 people will have been lying when they plead their cases for trade. More need for scum to lie means more chance of catching them in a lie.

Example -
X: Does anybody have fuel? I could really use one but think it's in town's best interest for me not to elaborate on why.
Y: I do! I'd be willing to trade it for a leather and a scrap or two scrap, as I'm aiming for Metal Armour.
Everybody else: ask questions, discuss plausibility of arguments, arrive at group decision as to whether trade can go ahead or not.

Once again, the fact that it involves trading at all means scum can easily trade things other than what they've claimed to trade, but at least they'll have to do more truth-stretching to try...
Thoughts?

[ForAllOfThis]

So you think Snark's acting scummy, I give an explanation why I strongly believe Snark is scum and vote, and that's me putting a vote down regardless of alignment? Please explain.

It was more the action of un-voting and then re-voting that I have a problem with. It's given me the impression that you had Snark as a target in mind, rather than actually thinking he's scum. It's more of a bad gut-feeling about your voting pattern, which is the only thing holding me back from putting a vote on Snark myself.

Although I have to admit there are good reasons to vote for Snark - his complete reversal from his very first post that "Anyone who trades needs to be lynched" to being the only player to say "I have X and need Y" suggests he was never as cautious about trading as he made out to start with. Suggests to me his original plan was to just gain townie points.

Right now, my gut is telling me to vote for you but my head is telling me to vote for Snark.

Hmm, interesting motivation here. You accuse Snark of being eager to trade, then your concern about lurkers is because it makes trading worse, not that it makes hard?

You've misinterpreted my reasoning here completely. If we were playing with just five players, I'm not sure how useful trading could be to us under the limited trade plan, so I would be against it. With 10 players, we have a much greater chance of getting the items we need to increase overall survivability tonight, and deny scum materials.

No-one else should vote for Snark. At least until we know how to progress on the trading front. If he is town, we don't want scum ending the day early before we get a chance to do any trading. I suggest we have a quick vote on who's happy with my proposed trade plan or not. If not, we'll have to look how to modify it but I do think it's the best way to maximise our success with trading and minimise scum's. Vote will end when a majority is reached (6 players), or after 24 hours.

Vote: For Limited Trading

If it's accepted, only list what you have for sale. You can only offer the item/s that you put up for sale. You can only make offers to items that people have put up for sale. You cannot say that you offer X and want Y, if someone hasn't put Y up for sale as that's giving scum too much information (glares at Snark). You can put two 1 value items up for sale, or a single 2/3 value item up for sale but no more.

@Trinenoks: That is not what I am suggesting. You could put a different item up tomorrow and a different one the day after that. It doesn't have to be the same item throughout the game.

[Chickenfish]

So you think Snark's acting scummy, I give an explanation why I strongly believe Snark is scum and vote, and that's me putting a vote down regardless of alignment? Please explain.

It was more the action of un-voting and then re-voting that I have a problem with. It's given me the impression that you had Snark as a target in mind, rather than actually thinking he's scum. It's more of a bad gut-feeling about your voting pattern, which is the only thing holding me back from putting a vote on Snark myself.

Although I have to admit there are good reasons to vote for Snark - his complete reversal from his very first post that "Anyone who trades needs to be lynched" to being the only player to say "I have X and need Y" suggests he was never as cautious about trading as he made out to start with. Suggests to me his original plan was to just gain townie points.

You do realise you've once again said you don't like my voting, then explained why it wakes sense?

Hmm, interesting motivation here. You accuse Snark of being eager to trade, then your concern about lurkers is because it makes trading worse, not that it makes hard?

You've misinterpreted my reasoning here completely. If we were playing with just five players, I'm not sure how useful trading could be to us under the limited trade plan, so I would be against it. With 10 players, we have a much greater chance of getting the items we need to increase overall survivability tonight, and deny scum materials.

I still don't think that should be your primary concern with lurkers. You do realise that if we mislynch today, we're in LyLo tomorrow. Your main concern should be with catching scum, not slightly disabling them.

No-one else should vote for Snark. At least until we know how to progress on the trading front. If he is town, we don't want scum ending the day early before we get a chance to do any trading. I suggest we have a quick vote on who's happy with my proposed trade plan or not. If not, we'll have to look how to modify it but I do think it's the best way to maximise our success with trading and minimise scum's. Vote will end when a majority is reached (6 players), or after 24 hours.

Vote: For Limited Trading

This is pretty forceful! I didn't realise you'd been declared leader.
Unvote, Vote: FAOT
Also for completely disregarding my suggestion.