Lataro's Simple Fun Game Over: Town wins.

For your simulated organized crime needs.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Christophoros
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:01 pm UTC
Location: The realm of the undead
Contact:

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Christophoros » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:13 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:@chris, sorry, i didn't do the full strategy analysis until i got to silknor. I should have qualified that your suggestion is townie if there is a mafia roleblocker and scummy otherwise.

Given that 50% of the setups have a scummy roleblacker, and the other two allow for a D3 switch to a roleblocker, I think erring on the side of caution is valid. Especially since (imo) the information the scum will gain from too LOW a roleblock count is more dangerous than the information they will gain from too HIGH a roleblock count.
"Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake."

"Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement."

Never Forget

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:25 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:Ahh, I remembered why Silknor's strategy modification was flawed. It is a benefit if there is a mafia RBer but a detriment if there is not one.


That doesn't make it flawed. First, there's some benefit too if there's a town roleblocker (because the cop would have to lie, they'd choose to say they investigated someone who just died, which is a weak signal of being a cop). Second, it's not flawed simply because it's better in some cases and worse in others. To determine if it's an improvement or not, you have to take a weighed average the amount by which it helps or hurts. I calculated earlier that the average number of roleblocks per night is 1 at the start. The chance that we're in a no roleblock scenario is actually 1/4, though the variation is obviously more helpful if we're also in a scenario with a mafia roleblocker.

And what's the detriment if there are no roleblockers at all? The only one I can see is that a totally honest cop won't ever claim roleblock, and thus be more easily detected. As I explain later, that's why the cop should consider a lie in some cases. If they investigate someone who died during the night, they gain nothing from revealing that information (we'll know their sanity anyway when they die). Thus they can freely claim they were roleblocked, and in doing so help keep their average number of roleblocks claimed in line with the average for the rest of players. That said, 1/4 chance of claiming roleblock was too high at the start. When I went through the calculation I saw that and lowered it. So if you want to claim that my variation wasn't ideal in it's first iteration, you have my full agreement. That's why I made modifications as we went through day 1.

So it's not as simple as if there's no mafia roleblocker than anyone who claims roleblock can be ruled out as town. The cop can do the same, making the strategy useless, and the mafia can't know for a while if there's a town roleblocker.

I agree with Chris that the percentage of false roleblock claims should be slightly higher than the probability that the cop is actually roleblocked. Remember there's two effects at work here. The cop wants the false roleblock claim percentage as close to the chance they will be roleblocked as possible, but they also want to not be the only one claiming roleblock on when the mafia roleblocker targets them (even though they can lie and say they investigated the dead guy, because they may not want to do that everytime).

If we confirm that there is a RBer then Silknor is as town as you can be without a confirmed cop confirming you.


While I can't say I mind that happening, I think it should be clear that this logic is flawed. Scum give good advice too. Anything a townie would do, scum may do.

You seem to have made the same mistake with Madge. I disagree with your claim that the follow-the-chosen strategy Madge posted is suicidal for scum. For one thing, much of the danger to the scum rests on the Chosen VT being alive at the start of day 3. Right off the bat, that may be a 50/50 probability (and the scum would have a clearer sense of that probability, since they may be able to eliminate a setup or two by now) of that. And if the Chosen is dead, and both scum claim Chosen, could be highly favorable for scum if the town doesn't realize that possibility (which I believe is why Madge left it out).

The advice also came at a time when Madge was being attacked. If posting that strategy turns a scum lynch into a mislynch, then it could easily be worth it. We're at 7/2 now. Mislynch gives us a possible 4/2 (hitman or vig, could come a day later too without affecting things, if we have both and vig misses, we're at double LYLO), if we lynch scum there as a result of the strategy, we go to 3/1, no lynch for 2/1, and then LYLO. If we lynch scum today, we're at 6/1 or 5/1 (and a small chance of 4/1), that's a lot of time for the town. Doctors/Roleblockers excluded for simplicity.

wam wrote:
eculc wrote:So. While it's unfortunate snark turned out to be town, it's nice to know that we no longer have an assassin in our hair.

Also unfortunate that adam is now dead with a 1-shot vig


Expressing regrets like that is a common scum tactic to appear townie.


I know that's the conventional wisdom, especially among newer players who tend to favor "rules" like that or "X one on the bandwagon is more likely to be scum", but why? I don't understand how that conventional wisdom got started, or why scum would be more likely to say it.

Bad strategy can come from town or scum.


Yes it can. But the thing that struck me most (besides her hiding that her strategy would be hugely anti-town if scum took advantage of an easily found tactic and town didn't realize that was a possibility), is that the advice, minus that omission, was leagues above her previous day 2 advice. The other pieces of advice she gave on D2 were so bad, so anti-town, that I don't see how it's possible that the same mind could also come up with a (minus the omission) great strategy re: Chosen VT claiming, unless she gave deliberately bad strategy earlier, and then when she was under some pressure, stopped trying to mislead newer players and showed what she was actually capable of. She went from yelling that 2+2=5 to discovering a new theorem of calculus.

Christophoros wrote:Given that 50% of the setups have a scummy roleblacker, and the other two allow for a D3 switch to a roleblocker


The variations don't become active on day 3. They're active immediately and revealed to the Chosen VT on Day 3.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Madge
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:45 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Madge » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:15 am UTC

Can I just say, that I'm feeling rather hurt at how you're saying that my strategy was so bad that I can be compared to someone who doesn't know basic arithmetic? I tell you honestly and with no lies, etc that all three strategies were conceived by me as the best I could do at the time. I assure you that I'm just a shitty player who occasionally has a good idea. (After all, any idiot could conceivably find a counterexample to the Riemann Hypothesis just by stumbling onto it, which is apparently analogous to what I did by having one good idea amid a sea of shitty ones). I know this post being made during the game that I could be lying and be a conniving super genius scum as you claim, but I will assure you again after the game ends that I was hurt on a personal level by what you said about me. Maybe I just need a thicker skin?

Also, your pointing out that scum could conceivably have two claims of chosen is a bad idea for three reasons:
1) It informs scum, who at this point have a high probability of being inexperienced players thanks to the recent deaths, that they could do this in order to get a 'confirmed town'.
2) It informs scum that we are aware they could do this. If we'd had two chosen claims tomorrow I would have pointed out the possibility that they were both scum (since I really doubt I'm going to be NK'd now that I'm so beloved by the town). If we'd only had one we wouldn't need to confuse the issue.
3) Following on from that, it means that scum are now more unlikely to try it; if we had two players claim Chosen, an experienced one amongst them (at the moment, wam, silknor, boomfrog, suzaku) then I would think there could be a higher probability of those people being scum than if two of the first-time players had claimed.
I'm writing a supernatural romance novel, it updates the first weekend of every month. You can find it here.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:09 am UTC

@Madge:
I meant no offense, and I apologize. My language was meant to be evocative, and when I wrote 2+2=5, I was thinking of 1984 and Picard and the 4 lights. As per your example, I have made for you the finest crumpets including orange marmalade I made myself with the new season's oranges. Please help yourself. (Being American, I don't actually know if those are any good; if it's the Australian version of giving someone fruitcake, then I apologize again :D).

That said, I think you're a good player, who is giving bad strategies to inexperienced townies because you're mafia and thought you could get away with it (insert quip about those meddling kids).

We're in the middle of a game, and I have to account for the possibility that your post is but a strategem (or at the very least, serves multiple purposes), given that you posted it here instead of PMing me. Thus I'm not going to say any more about this here, though I have made a post in the spoiler thread on the issue, so hopefully you'll see it more from my point of view after the game.

Also, your pointing out that scum could conceivably have two claims of chosen is a bad idea for three reasons:
1) It informs scum, who at this point have a high probability of being inexperienced players thanks to the recent deaths, that they could do this in order to get a 'confirmed town'.
2) It informs scum that we are aware they could do this. If we'd had two chosen claims tomorrow I would have pointed out the possibility that they were both scum (since I really doubt I'm going to be NK'd now that I'm so beloved by the town). If we'd only had one we wouldn't need to confuse the issue.
3) Following on from that, it means that scum are now more unlikely to try it; if we had two players claim Chosen, an experienced one amongst them (at the moment, wam, silknor, boomfrog, suzaku) then I would think there could be a higher probability of those people being scum than if two of the first-time players had claimed.


1. A. If that is true, then most of town is inexperienced too (I know we have some relatively new players, but I don't know to what extent, nor how many, besides Boomfrog and the late Adam H, are veterans, as I've been away for a while).
B. I think this was really easy for the scum to figure out. And if they couldn't, I'm much more confident that the town will win.

2. This is true. However, I didn't know that you knew (and as I already thought you were scum, that wouldn't be a reason for me to withhold anyway). Would I have preferred to reveal it tomorrow? Sure. But I might have died overnight, and if no one else picked up on it, then the scum could easily take a free win. You can't have it both ways. It can't be so obvious that the town won't fall for it, but so subtle that the scum wouldn't figure it out without me revealing it.

3. I'm afraid I don't follow the part after the semicolon.

The key point is that A. the scum will spend more time thinking about their strategy than the town, and they have less to think about since they have more information, and B. one scum needs to figure it out for all of them to do it, while if no one posts, all townies need to figure it out independently. This makes the revelation of what scum could do highly asymmetric in its consequences. The benefit to the town far outweighs the benefit to the scum. Under the rule you gave of "never give advice to scum," the scum are both more likely to know their options than the average townie, and it's significantly likely that not all townies will know all the of scum's options and the implications. It amounts to a rule of "don't point out flaws in proposed strategies." That is, of course, wrong and anti-town, because those strategies can often be patched, and because of the aforementioned asymmetry. And here's the kicker. You don't follow your own advice. Evidence:

Spoiler:
Madge wrote:
Adam H wrote:For vigs: I think it's best if you only target a player that you've claimed to find scummiest. That way if you, the SK, or the mafia end up claiming vig, we can look back and see if the player you claim to kill was scummy. And only kill if you are as sure as possible, that way you don't waste it by killing a townie.


I don't know. If I'm a vig and I post saying I find, say, eculc scummiest and then eculc winds up dead tonight the mafia can use that information to think I might be a vig and kill me. That said, I believe all of our vig are one shot so that won't matter so much.


Madge wrote:
5) Do you think we should do the If I am a cop strategy?
It sounds like it has no drawbacks, so I don't see why not.


The drawback is if you ARE the cop the mafia can work it out because they know who the innocent and guilty players are.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Madge
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:45 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Madge » Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:41 am UTC

It's OK. I get offended easily; I know you didn't mean anything malicious by it. (And I guess I could have PM'd you, but then that would be technically talking about the game in a non-game thread so I don't even.... Maybe even making us masons of a sort? :P)

Gotta say, it's not fair that you post my pointing out two very obvious strategems as equivalent to your pointing out a more subtle one. But yeah, the issue on how much to tell town versus how much is right to give scum is thorny, and since you had no idea I'd thought of the risk of two people claiming as well and chances are we won't both die overnight I can now see why you pointed it out.

I will try to explain my third point better:
Spoiler:
Tomorrow, if we have two Chosen claims, we have the following possibilities:
A. Two experienced players
B. One new and one experienced player
C. Two new players

In cases A or B, we can think that at least one of the experienced players has figured out the "let's possibly become confirmed town gambit" and instructs their scumbuddy to claim if they haven't thought of it. So there's a decent chance, in those cases, that they might both be scum.

Whereas in case C, they probably aren't both scum because it would be less likely that a new player would think of the idea. So this means case C is (extremely) weak evidence that one of the Chosen is legit.

However, now that everyone knows, case C is more likely to happen, so it's no longer a way of saying "they probably aren't both scum" (weak belief).


Now, I admit the usefulness of the deductions made by the third point are tiny, and may be wrong because let's remember:

Image

;)
I'm writing a supernatural romance novel, it updates the first weekend of every month. You can find it here.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:52 am UTC

On your 3rd point:
I think it's dangerous to underestimate people. An assumption that the scum will always find the hole is a better starting point than one in which you assume newer players probably won't see it. Besides, I don't think this hole was particularly hard for the scum find, especially compared the danger it posed to the town.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:45 am UTC

I don't want to bog down the thread with a rehash of yesterdays pages of strategy so I'll keep this as brief as I can.
As I explain later, that's why the cop should consider a lie in some cases. If they investigate someone who died during the night, they gain nothing from revealing that information (we'll know their sanity anyway when they die). Thus they can freely claim they were roleblocked, and in doing so help keep their average number of roleblocks claimed in line with the average for the rest of players.
First, everyone should not be making any distinction between "I was roleblocked" and "I targeted a player who died" neither of these are useful to town so there is no need to give extra detail. A cop and all other pretend cops never needs to "lie" just say, "no useful result".
So if you want to claim that my variation wasn't ideal in it's first iteration, you have my full agreement. That's why I made modifications as we went through day 1.
With the inclusion of the possibility of targeting dead people in "no useful result" the strategy becomes sound and helpful to town in most cases and only slightly detrimental in the worst case. As I said, my general read on you is townie for taking the lead in developing good strategy, but with a slight caveat that your initial proposition is unhelpful to town if there is no mafia RBer. For the record I think the ideal % of "no result" claims is equal to the chance of targeting a dead person, thus in the worst case of no RBer mafia gains no information at all. A % between 0-50% have canceling out chances of either helping narrow down likely cops or tricking the mafia RB into believing they were successful. The main benefit of the plan is to allow for a cop targeted by a town RBer to not be automatically outed or forced to lie. 1/5th is close enough that I'm not going to argue it.

As to Madge's strategy, it is interesting that both of you keep entertaining the idea that scum might claim chosen. I think it is very unlikely because the chosen have to say what variations are in effect and this claim is testable with a mass claim afterwords. I know Silknor is against mass claims, but in Madge's original version scum have very little chance to perfectly guess the setup so have little chance to survive falseclaiming chosen.

Also what setup has only 2 VT? I counted 3VT minimum in C36.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:58 am UTC

eculc wrote:
BoomFrog wrote:@chris, sorry, i didn't do the full strategy analysis until i got to silknor. I should have qualified that your suggestion is townie if there is a mafia roleblocker and scummy otherwise.
How is his suggestion more townie or scummy based on information he would not have as a townie? If he knows which one it is, he must be scum so therefore should be lynched. But since we can't assume that he does know...

Care to explain your reasoning?
If the plan is bad for town then it is evidence that he is scum and did it on purpose. It's not proof but almost nothing is in this game. We won't know if his plan was bad for town or not until D3 at least though. I'm not sure what your confusion is?

Christophoros wrote:
BoomFrog wrote:@chris, sorry, i didn't do the full strategy analysis until i got to silknor. I should have qualified that your suggestion is townie if there is a mafia roleblocker and scummy otherwise.
Given that 50% of the setups have a scummy roleblacker, and the other two allow for a D3 switch to a roleblocker, I think erring on the side of caution is valid. Especially since (imo) the information the scum will gain from too LOW a roleblock count is more dangerous than the information they will gain from too HIGH a roleblock count.
A high % of "no result" claims eliminates most of those players from the pool of "likely cops" and makes it easier for scum to find the cop regardless of mafia roles. Your modification does help a cop who is targeted by a mafia RBer stay hidden but that situation is only roughly 1/9 N1. And the other 8/9 times all you've done is cut out half the players from the pool of likely cops. Your modification is definitely worse then Silknor's original plan, extremely so if there is not a mafia RBer.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby wam » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:09 am UTC

Dear almighty overlord may we have some votals?

I am getting a bit lost/bored/annoyed at the ridiculous amount of strategy talk we are having. There has been so little scum hunting all game!
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
Suzaku
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 10:20 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Suzaku » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:41 am UTC

wam wrote:Dear almighty overlord may we have some votals?
There's no need to be so formal, but yes, you may 8-)

Unofficial Votals:

Madge - 1 (Silknor)
eculc - 3 (BoomFrog, wam, Suzaku)

Not voting: Carlington, Christophoros, Bartimaeus, Madge, eculc

9 alive, 5 to lynch

Deadline in about 3 days and 11 hours.
Pronouns: he/him/his > they/them/their >> it/it/its
Time Zone: JST (UTC+9)
─────────────────────────
Some guy on the Internet wrote:The thing about the inevitable, it has a bad habit of actually happening.

User avatar
Suzaku
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 10:20 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Suzaku » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:45 am UTC

EBWOP: I agree with wam that the strategy discussion is getting a little out of hand (important though it may be). Madge, Silknor, what do you think of our other players and the state of the votals?
Pronouns: he/him/his > they/them/their >> it/it/its
Time Zone: JST (UTC+9)
─────────────────────────
Some guy on the Internet wrote:The thing about the inevitable, it has a bad habit of actually happening.

User avatar
Madge
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:45 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Madge » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:24 pm UTC

I just want to say that I should put a disclaimer on everything below saying that not only am I a subpar mafia player who occaisionally has a brilliant flash of insight, I have had very little sleep/slept poorly last night, so this might be the ravings of a lunatic.



Carlington - I like Carlington. I don't know why. I just get a good feeling. Instincts count for something, right? =/. neutral lenaing town

Christophoros - I'm really concerned about Christophoros; I have flashbacks to the game where Markstonia basically active lurked his way to a scum victory. leaning scum

wam - wam is being quiet but I believe is in like 4 games, so this is OK. Wants us to get back on scumhunting and away from strategy talk. I think if wam were scum they'd welcome the smokescreen that this recent debate has caused, so getting away from it is townie I guess? leaning town

boomfrog - BoomFrog has a lovely habit of always seeming super townie to me, which makes me suspicious of him automatically. Especially with what looks like trying to buddy me (though insulting me in the process, but eh, I'm used to THAT by now :P) neutral

Bartimaeus - quiet and I don't even quite remember them. did a search; has made TWO posts today. one saying "if I am cop" and asking about the order of kills, promising to post later. Calls me scummy (I assume in connection with Silknor's suspicion) , and then requests Christophoros be modprodded for lurking. That's it. Nothing after it. I really don't like this; his posts wouldn't be more than a couple of hundred words, if that. This d2 lurking is far more worrisome than the d1 lurking. I think if Bart is scum then Silknor is possibly his partner; I only base this on d2, if Bart does flip scum at some point I would have to re-read to see if I will stand by that suspicion. scummy

Silknor - I think that despite everything, Silknor is probably town. Just because whenever two people are at each other's throats it seems to work out that way. Also I'm blinded by OMGUS, so I'm trying to compensate for that. neutral

Suzaku - Doesn't jump out at me. in the same box as wam in my head; neutral leaning town

Eculc - has been quiet today. Yesterday's behavior is still scummy, but d1 scumminess is never as big a deal as d2 scumminess. But who knows. leaning scummy

In conclusion, I am really bloody worried by Bartimaeus, so

Vote: Bartimaeus

This vote is about 70% wanting to lynch and 30% wanting more content. More content will change my desire to lynch and then my vote might change.
I'm writing a supernatural romance novel, it updates the first weekend of every month. You can find it here.

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby wam » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:34 pm UTC

Madge wrote:wam - wam is being quiet but I believe is in like 4 games, so this is OK. Wants us to get back on scumhunting and away from strategy talk. I think if wam were scum they'd welcome the smokescreen that this recent debate has caused, so getting away from it is townie I guess? leaning town


Nope Only 2 at the moment now I have died in batmafia.

Just all thats going on is strategy and I don't have much to add to that. I am still playing this game in my head as if its closed as it's easier to scummhunt that way.
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
Lataro
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:56 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Lataro » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Suzaku wrote:
wam wrote:Dear almighty overlord may we have some votals?
There's no need to be so formal, but yes, you may 8-)

Unofficial Votals:

Madge - 1 (Silknor)
eculc - 3 (BoomFrog, wam, Suzaku)

Not voting: Carlington, Christophoros, Bartimaeus, Madge, eculc

9 alive, 5 to lynch

Deadline in about 3 days and 11 hours.


Quite right, though, if you are after brownie points... oh, what the heck, have 10.
DS9, after being told the story and moral of the boy who cried wolf by Julian.

Garak: "Are you sure that's the moral?"
Julian: "Of course. What else could it be?"
Garak: "Never tell the same lie twice."

User avatar
Bartimaeus
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere near NYC, but nobody's heard of

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Bartimaeus » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:11 pm UTC

Sorry to have taken so long to post. Analyzing EVERYONE is a lot more difficult than discussing just the things that stick out, which makes sense. It also didn't help that I started semester yesterday, so I was busy moving in on the weekend.

Anyway, the list.


Carlington - He seems like a new player who is openly trying to figure out the game. I don't think that any of his stranger actions are scummy for that reason. However, there is always that possibility that he is scum, despite his mistakes being genuine ones. Neutral.

Christophoros - I've liked his play today, but his previous actions were suspicious. He lurked a lot, and I disliked the way in which he voted for Snark. Neutral, thanks to today's play, but IGMEOY.

wam - I don't have much to say about wam. I can't really remember what he's done, but nothing eve seemed particularly bad. Neutral.

Phredd94/BoomFrog - I had mixed feelings about Phred's play, but BoomFrog has been posting good, well thought out analysis. Leaning Town.

Bartimaeus - Need I comment?

Silknor - He's been posting A LOT of content. What he's been posting has been good, often very good, and quite town. Town.

Suzaku - Nothing about him pings me at all, and his posts have been townish. Neutral leaning Town.

Madge - I don't at all like his last minute vote change D1. His play today hasn't been confusing to say the least. As others have noted, he seems to say things in a way which might be scummy, but it's difficult to tell. However, I think that some of his comments are inexcusable(ie claim fishing), and that added to the Snark vote leave me unhappy with him. Scum.

Eculc - Focuses too strongly on general aspects. He seems to find it difficult to discuss anything but strategy. Leaning scummy.


I have to run to class now. I'll answer any questionable things and reread the most recent posts and probably put down a vote (probably on Madge for the reasons posted above), but I want to consider that more deeply.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:34 pm UTC

Madge prefers female pronouns. Besides that looks pretty good. I believe we are still waiting for Eculc, Chris and other Chris to post lists. You don't have to reread everything but at least post a list and your impressions of each player. If you're town then you have nothing to hide.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:02 pm UTC

@Boomfrog: I think you may be right that combining "I targeted someone who died last night" and "I was roleblocked" are best combined into "no result." However, the probability of "no result" should be the probability that they were roleblocked plus the probability that if they were not roleblocked, they targeted someone who died that night. That is entirely doable, but requires that probabilities be calculated in the morning according to a formula. Because it is possible that 0 or 3 die, and trying to cut the middle ground could make it too easy to rule out someone as cop.

As to Madge's strategy, it is interesting that both of you keep entertaining the idea that scum might claim chosen. I think it is very unlikely because the chosen have to say what variations are in effect and this claim is testable with a mass claim afterwords. I know Silknor is against mass claims, but in Madge's original version scum have very little chance to perfectly guess the setup so have little chance to survive falseclaiming chosen.


It's testable only to some extent. Is someone's Chosen variation claim wrong because they are lying, or because a scum who didn't claim Chosen is lying? I agree it's entirely possible that a scum will be unlucky, or screw up, and give a result that can be shown to be a lie even if the other scum claimed a non-chosen role. But depending on the setup, they may have been able to post at least one scenario that was consistent with what we know and find out later.

It's also possible that Madge was counting on the fact that there wouldn't be a massclaim. I'm not saying she knew I would come in and argue against it. But if there's been a mass claim suggestion in another game she's played, and if it got shot down, then it might be here as well. Then she could avoid the danger of the mass claim while getting credit for suggesting a strategy with one.

Also what setup has only 2 VT? I counted 3VT minimum in C36.


No setup has just 2 VT at the start (including the late Snark). I was factoring in an estimate of the probability that a VT would be killed tonight.

Suzaku wrote: Madge, Silknor, what do you think of our other players and the state of the votals?


I feel like at this point, I don't have a strong understanding of why people are finding eculc scummy. Have they done something new today, or is it simply carrying over of things from D1? Even on day 1, I never really had a grasp of what scummy things they had done.

Let's see how many posts everyone has made today:
Bartimaeus: 3 posts.

Boomfrog: 8 posts. Vote for Eculc is D1 based, based on meta re: Snark and tunnel vision.

Carlington: 5 posts. Not much content, but I also feel their confusion and unusual questions are probably genuine.

Christophorus: 3 posts.

Eculc: 7 posts: Not a lot of content. Doesn't make IIWAC until reminded to. Proposes a strategy whereby we sit around and not post until the Chosen does.

Lataro-4 posts: Very little content, tries to compensate by frequently using bold text. Verdict: Active Lurking.

Madge-15 posts: I've analyzed those elsewhere, except for the recent vote on Bartimaeus, which is based solely on lurking.

Silknor-11 posts.

Suzaku-7 posts: Cites Eculc's response to RVS as their reason for voting, along with flawed logic vs IIWAC. Looking back to that I see that Wam made a random vote against Adam H before Adam H posted. Eculc then puts an FoS on Wam for being too aggressive, and says that RVS isn't needed. Eculc doesn't seem to notice that it's a vote on someone who hasn't posted yet (and not from inactivity either). Later Eculc says random votes are useless. I agree: they do sometimes trip up inexperienced players, but I fail to see the virtue in that unless you have some reason to think the mod intentionally picked inexperienced players for scum. To be fair, I also think FoS is useless.

Wam-5 posts: 4 of these posts have no content (3 posts that they have nothing to say, and 1 that defines godfather, which is helpful to the person who asked but wouldn't be counted as content). The other gives a list, says that Madge is they're second scum choice, and votes Eculc. Regarding the vote: "Expressing regrets like that is a common scum tactic to appear townie." I made a point of asking why this is so then, and I do so again. I have no reason to think this is true, except that it's been one of the silly "rules" new players pick up along with "X on the bandwagon is scummy." Neither of which seem to have any basis in fact in my experience. I don't even get how the regret would make one appear townie.

Some of the reasons being used to attack Eculc are quite weak (Random Voting, regrets). Much of the reasoning seems to be falling back on D1 suspicions alone. I can see some reason to be suspicious, but not a strong one. I find Madge far scummier.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Bartimaeus
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere near NYC, but nobody's heard of

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Bartimaeus » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:32 am UTC

Fix'd. I apologize for that.

Madge - I don't at all like her last minute vote change D1. Her play today hasn't been confusing to say the least. As others have noted, she seems to say things in a way which might be scummy, but it's difficult to tell. However, I think that some of her comments are inexcusable(ie claim fishing), and that added to the Snark vote leave me unhappy with her. Scum.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:19 am UTC

@Boomfrog: I think you may be right that combining "I targeted someone who died last night" and "I was roleblocked" are best combined into "no result." However, the probability of "no result" should be the probability that they were roleblocked plus the probability that if they were not roleblocked, they targeted someone who died that night. That is entirely doable, but requires that probabilities be calculated in the morning according to a formula. Because it is possible that 0 or 3 die, and trying to cut the middle ground could make it too easy to rule out someone as cop.
I respectfully disagree but I think our detailed dissection of probability has been a detriment to the new players staying engaged, and is hurting our collective scum hunting. Can we simply agree to merge roleblocked and targeted dead into "no result" and leave the chance of fake-cops claiming that at what it was D1?
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:36 am UTC

Compromise 2 (aka my way, except I'll do the calculation now):

2 Scum
1 avg Roleblock/night
9 players

Probability of roleblock is 1/6.5 (lynch 1, so 7 targets for town RB, 6 for scum if townie is lynched), round to 1/7 (the error factor balances out later mostly, because I simply added the probabilities instead of using the conditional probability, which biases it upwards slightly)

If X die, probability that cop targeted one of them=X/7

So for tomorrow, generate a random number from 1 to 7.

If 0 die, "no report" with 1/7 chance.
If 1 die, "no report" with 2/7 chance.
If 2 die, "no report" with 3/7 chance.
If 3 die, "no report" with 4/7 chance.

I kept the probability as simple as I could without giving the scum a big advantage (notice how much the report chance varies with the number that die, a single number would be too easy to exploit. If we used 1/6 like you suggested, and 2 died, the scum would get a lot of information.)
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Madge
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:45 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Madge » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:41 am UTC

No probs Bartimaeus. I corrected you before about the pronoun issue so it was especially jarring to see the wrong ones again! (I love how we take pronouns seriously on here. It's nice to know people remember each other's genders. It makes it feel a bit more like a community of sorts? But it also leads to me saying 'they' until someone else uses a pronoun or until I have learned the person's gender.)

I hope nobody thinks it's bad that I put my vote on someone who wasn't producing content; as far as I'm concerned if you're posting as little as Bart was, you're being really sneaky or forgetting about the game or don't have an opinion; either way, a bad thing, since lurking helps scum and hurts town. If I'd made two tiny posts today I probably wouldn't have met Silknor's wrath and received a vote; but I also wouldn't have proposed the one good idea that is the pearl in the sea of swine, or however that metaphor goes.

Now Bart's produced some content, I'm happy to

Unvote

(In retrospect my vote was probably more 70% wanting content and 30% desire to lynch, since most of my desire to lynch was a result of the lack of content)

I'm really not comfortable voting eculc to L-1 at this stage, but there are some scum tells that make him seem an attractive lynch candidate. Closer to the deadline, I will probably put my vote on eculc, unless more information comes to light.

Carlington, Christophoros, Bartimaeus, Eculc; could you start thinking about making some votes? Votes are easy to change, especially if you're the first to place one on someone.
I'm writing a supernatural romance novel, it updates the first weekend of every month. You can find it here.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:55 am UTC

Madge wrote:I'm really not comfortable voting eculc to L-1 at this stage, but there are some scum tells that make him seem an attractive lynch candidate. Closer to the deadline, I will probably put my vote on eculc, unless more information comes to light.


Could you tell us what those "scum tells" are? I see a whole lot of momentum for a eculc lynch, carried over from Day 1, but very little reason why. And the reasons that have been given are generally quite flimsy (he didn't like the random votes, he got tunnel vision, he expressed regret over the dead).

The first two apply to probably half the players here, myself included, and I've twice asked for any sort of explanation about the third reason without getting an answer, much less a plausible one.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Suzaku
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 10:20 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Suzaku » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:08 am UTC

Madge wrote:But it also leads to me saying 'they' until someone else uses a pronoun or until I have learned the person's gender.
You can follow the link in the P in my signature to find a list of people's preferred pronouns, if need be. And I agree it's nice that people take them seriously.

Regarding probabilities (and I promise this will be all I say on the subject):
The sample size is so small that I suspect that first-, or even zeroth-, degree approximations should be fine. There are only 6 (current townies and assuming one cop) random events, you're not going to get a good distribution no matter how you slice it.

To clarify my suspicion on eculc:
As you said, Silknor, it's mostly a hangover from D1. I don't see this as a major issue, however, as he's done nothing D2 to expunge those suspicions. Certainly I would change to another, better target if one presented itself, but I don't think one has. I disagree with your read of Madge as more scummy than eculc, at this point. My reading of Madge is fairly townie, for reasons already stated, and also as she's self-editing less than I would expect scum to.
That is, putting down raw thoughts and opinions without being overly concerned about their reception is a town tell, not a scum tell, and that's my read of her posts.
I'm not blind to the possibility that she's scum hiding behind 'I'm town but I don't know what I'm doing,' but I don't, at this point, believe that to be the case.

Anyway, meeting calls. More later...

Ninja: I've never heard of the 'regrets for the dead being a scum tell,' so I can't help there. I am still a relative noob, though, whatever Madge might think :)
Also, for clarity's sake, do you think the an eculc lynch would likely be a mislynch and to be avoided altogether, or just that a Madge lynch would be the better choice of the two?
Pronouns: he/him/his > they/them/their >> it/it/its
Time Zone: JST (UTC+9)
─────────────────────────
Some guy on the Internet wrote:The thing about the inevitable, it has a bad habit of actually happening.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:18 am UTC

Again, Silknor I disagree with your reason to raise the numbers but it's not worth the discussion space. Suzaku is right.

About Eculc, I wanted the Chris' to do their analysis before I get too into it, but Eculc has made a lot of posts and has done almost zero scum hunting. You translated that into tunnel vision, but I don't think it is even that as he said very little about snark as well.

Until I see some more participation.

Unvote
Vote Carlington
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Suzaku
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 10:20 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Suzaku » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:24 am UTC

BF: Chris' (plural)? Am I missing something?
Pronouns: he/him/his > they/them/their >> it/it/its
Time Zone: JST (UTC+9)
─────────────────────────
Some guy on the Internet wrote:The thing about the inevitable, it has a bad habit of actually happening.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:26 am UTC

From the pronoun thread:
Carlington wrote:I am going to throw my hat in as well. I have played a few games of card!Mafia, so this shouldn't be a HUGE stretch. Thanks for the suggestion, Deva.
I am male, and prefer he/him/his. If you want to shorten my name, do not use "Carlton" or "Carling" because they are ugh. Abbreviate my name as "Chris" if it please ye.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Suzaku
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 10:20 am UTC
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Suzaku » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:28 am UTC

Ahh, thanks.
Pronouns: he/him/his > they/them/their >> it/it/its
Time Zone: JST (UTC+9)
─────────────────────────
Some guy on the Internet wrote:The thing about the inevitable, it has a bad habit of actually happening.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:39 am UTC

Suzaku wrote:Regarding probabilities (and I promise this will be all I say on the subject):
The sample size is so small that I suspect that first-, or even zeroth-, degree approximations should be fine. There are only 6 (current townies and assuming one cop) random events, you're not going to get a good distribution no matter how you slice it.


That's my argument about why Boomfrog was wrong. Hence why I gave the numbers as if X then Y. And sample size has nothing to do with it; you're throwing out a bunch of statistics terms, but there doesn't seem to be a connection between them and anything in the game.

My reading of Madge is fairly townie, for reasons already stated, and also as she's self-editing less than I would expect scum to.
That is, putting down raw thoughts and opinions without being overly concerned about their reception is a town tell, not a scum tell, and that's my read of her posts.


I understand your point here, but it's not a matter of phrasing things poorly. Posting a ton of anti-town advice to new players is not a town tell. And the end-point of that reasoning is that doing scummy things is townie because a scum wouldn't give themselves away.

Also, for clarity's sake, do you think the an eculc lynch would likely be a mislynch and to be avoided altogether, or just that a Madge lynch would be the better choice of the two?


I see eculc as slightly scummy but more likely to be town than scum. "Likely to be a mislynch" is an odd standard, given that the background probability that someone is scum is so low (22.2%). By contrast, I see Madge as very scummy.

BoomFrog wrote:About Eculc, I wanted the Chris' to do their analysis before I get too into it, but Eculc has made a lot of posts and has done almost zero scum hunting. You translated that into tunnel vision, but I don't think it is even that as he said very little about snark as well.


Boomfrog wrote:No comments on other players except his intention to lynch snark (very scummy)


That's what I meant by tunnel vision. You may be right though, as he didn't focus very hard on snark (not surprising, as he was the second target, and probably just wanted anyone else lynched).
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby eculc » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:03 am UTC

Sorry, I've been a bit busy and while that doesn't really excuse my lack of content it does interfere with me trying to post more.

I think it's clear that I'd rather have madge lynched than me, for reasons that should be obvious. I can't help but feel like most of the accusations against me are for lack of scumhunting D1/early D2, but...I think this applies to more than just me.

That said, I don't really have any solid suspicions at the moment. I was going to say something about madge, but as I read back over D1 I realized it's more of an instinctual ping than one actually based on content.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:52 am UTC

Can you give your opinions on the other players? I realize you're busy, maybe just list your impressions even if you can't link to evidence. We need something to judge you by, and it's not like you and Madge are the only possible people to lynch today.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Christophoros
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:01 pm UTC
Location: The realm of the undead
Contact:

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Christophoros » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:22 pm UTC

Im not liking Madge's defence against Silknor's attacks on her strategies. It just feels to me as though she's playing the ineptitude card as an easy way out, without actually defending how she came to those strategies in the first place.

Silknor wrote:The variations don't become active on day 3. They're active immediately and revealed to the Chosen VT on Day 3.

Yegads! That throws ALL my numbers off. I will have to re-read pretty much the entire strategy discussion again it that light. Also, I now see why people are playing this as though it were a closed game.

wam wrote:Godfather's only turn up town to investigations by cops. Their true role is revealed upon death*

*This is true for normal godfathers but you can have death godfathers but that is considered highly bastard and won't be the case in newbie simple games.

Thanks, I misunderstood that. I retract my FoS.

Madge wrote:Carlington, Christophoros, Bartimaeus, Eculc; could you start thinking about making some votes? Votes are easy to change, especially if you're the first to place one on someone.

You're right, will do.

I'm actually disturbed enough by Madge's lack of reasoned defence, that I'm going to

Vote: Madge
"Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake."

"Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement."

Never Forget

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby wam » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:53 pm UTC

Just a heads up we have about 2.5 days to the deadline. Am currently re-reading the lastest stuff will have something more substantial up later.
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby eculc » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:10 pm UTC

Alright, General feelings time, in no particular order:

Wam: Reasonable level of content D1 (more than most people at least) but not much so far today. Neutral.

Carlington: lots more Today than D1, Leading me to feel more comfortable with him, but lurking a bit as well. Neutral.

Silknor: Far and away the most content-producing player, but for reasons I can't explain I'm getting the same sort of feeling that I'm getting from madge. Still, though, I don't believe he's scum based on how active he's been.

Bartimaeus: Not much to go on, but a distinct lack of content both yesterday and today. Leaning Scum.

Boomfrog/phredd: Lack of content D1, but that's changed so far today. Leaning town.

Suzaku: Once again, One of the more content-producing members of the game. Town

Madge, I've already expressed my thoughts so I'll leave her off for now.

Christophoros: Not much content, but what has been said is worthwhile. Neutral, leaning town.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.

User avatar
wam
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:08 am UTC
Location: South England

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby wam » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:12 pm UTC

@ Silknor the reasons it is suspicous is the following.

After night and having chatted to the buddies, scum have a much better idea of what happened/is happening. Now it is hard to fake townie comments as if your not careful the extra knowledge will seep through. For example saying X must have been killed by a SK. When there were two deaths. However, it is much easier to post some throwaway comment like out that sucks or hey awesome and then wait for more content from townies and respond to that.

Urgh most of the tells in the game are people lurking. (I hate lurking tells as they go both ways).

What I would like to see is more votes. Currently 4 out of 9 are voting. It should be much higher.

eculc wrote:Still, though, I don't believe he's scum based on how active he's been.


Doesn't work like that! [meta] I tend to be more active in games when I am scum than In my town games as I enjoy scum more [/meta] (yeah ponder that wine)

The interesting thing that has stuck out to me is that both of the leading lynch targets have pointed a finger at bart. Now whilst I know his contents been low I don't think he has actually done anything scummy.
Come join us playing mafia signup here

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Silknor » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:35 pm UTC

wam wrote:@ Silknor the reasons it is suspicous is the following.

After night and having chatted to the buddies, scum have a much better idea of what happened/is happening. Now it is hard to fake townie comments as if your not careful the extra knowledge will seep through. For example saying X must have been killed by a SK. When there were two deaths. However, it is much easier to post some throwaway comment like out that sucks or hey awesome and then wait for more content from townies and respond to that.


The problem is "everyone knows" that it's scummy to post regrets. And the scum tells that everyone knows are more salient for the scum. Plus empirically I just don't see it. What I see is that people post it naturally, because commenting on the night just feels normal. Especially because there is some content in it*. And they stop once they realize that there's always some who still find it suspicious.

Ironically, one of the reasons I'm voting for Madge is I think that extra knowledge did seep through. She posted that a setup had been clearly eliminated as possible when it most certainly had not.

*Nights aren't always the same. Some really are better or worse, and it matters which. For example, if you assume the game is reasonably balanced, a really good or really bad night has implications for how the town should play. Likewise, if a cop (and we knew there were no more) had died Lynch 1/N1, it would be totally legitimate to lament that fact meaning much of the strategy talk D1 was useless.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Carlington » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:38 am UTC

Sorry for the lack of posting of late, everybody. I've been working mornings and sleeping afternoons lately, very very tired boy am I.
In the interest of full disclosure, I just want to say that my first instinct when writing this post is to agree with those of you who think I'm coming up scummy - I would probably suspect me too, if I were in somebody else's shoes. Having said that, this post now looks like a WIFOM post to try and throw you all off the scent. I'll just tell you that it would definitely be a bad idea to lynch me, and leave it there. Now, to my general feelings about everyone.


Wam: Has posted the same amount as I have, and yet seems to have much less suspicion levelled at him for lack of posting than I have levelled at me. Worth noting that when Madge explained his lack of content by saying he was in a lot of games, he openly countered that, admitting that there's really no reason for a lack of content. I think he seems to be leaning a little bit to the scum side of things, just enough for a FoS. I also notice that he bemoans the fact that there is not enough scumhunting and too much strategy, but makes no effort himself to get scumhunting going. Leaning scummy.

eculc: Doesn't seem to be pushing very hard for much of anything at all - in fact he seems perfectly happy to sit here and let people get lynched effectively at random until D3. That seems off to me, surely he must realise that waiting that long to take action is going to weaken town more than it benefits us? Not enough information to draw solid conclusions, however - maybe he really is just too busy to post. Neutral, slightest bit scummy.

Silknor: Silknor has been producing a truckload of posts, and seems super-keen to help town and newbies. While this could very easily be a smokescreen to throw people off, if it is, he's got me fooled. My gut tells me town.

Bartimaeus: Provided a good reason for his lack of content, and what content he has provided has seemed reasonably worthwhile, as far as I can tell. Neutral, slight town leaning.

Boomfrog/phredd: phredd definitely lacked content D1, however he very soon afterwards dropped out of the game - so maybe he really just couldn't keep up. BoomFrog, on the other hand, is reading scum. (Although I freely admit this could be a case of subconscious OMGUS). He spent a lot of time finnicking over the details of the IIWAC strategy, instead of scumhunting. Also, rather than requesting a modprod for lack of activity, threw a vote at me. Seems a bit silly to vote without good reason (I know I did this D1, I know. I know.) especially when its just because of a lack of content. Also, hasn't reacted so violently to other people's lack of content - possible scummates BF/wam? Neutral, slight scum once you account for my OMGUS reaction, but my gut tells me scum. That opinion may change, however, depending on how he reacts when I start posting more. Maybe.

Suzaku: Suzaku reads town for the most part, however I don't know that I believe his reason for lacking content - he can't post now, he has to go to a meeting, but looking at the timestamps, he's posting in this thread again 15 minutes later. Neutral, leaning slightly scum.

Madge: Madge is leaning town. I feel like Silknor's persecuting her a little bit over this whole strategy thing. Then again, it's easy for me to feel empathy towards someone who is claiming a lack of experience. I definitely know the feeling. Neutral, slight town.

Christophoros: His name is like my name, I think we should be friends! :P Hmm, tough to say, there's not been much content. He reads as a newbie, and I can relate to the way he's playing - I feel like he's probably just newbie town who feels a little bit in over his head (like me!). Town.

It scares me a little bit, because when I post, people start reading scum, and when I don't post, people accuse me of lurking and thus being scum. I can't seem to put a foot right. Maybe I'm just acting a little bit too cautious, but that's only because I'm trying so hard NOT to read scum. There is a very good reason for me to want to not read scum, though.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:57 am UTC

Carlington wrote:It scares me a little bit, because when I post, people start reading scum, and when I don't post, people accuse me of lurking and thus being scum. I can't seem to put a foot right. Maybe I'm just acting a little bit too cautious, but that's only because I'm trying so hard NOT to read scum. There is a very good reason for me to want to not read scum, though.
Everyone wants to avoid being lynched, but scum have a harder time acting town because they have to imagine what they would do if they were town and it's hard to model a perfect alternate reality self. For example I think Scum-Carlington would have been self conscious about admitting he is trying so hard to avoid looking scummy. Keep posting your raw thoughts and let us judge you.

Carlington wrote:That opinion may change, however, depending on how he reacts when I start posting more. Maybe.
I really want to keep my vote on you now out of perversity, but my intention was simply to get you to post. I didn't think you were in Mod-action zone yet, and I've seen plenty of new players avoid posting out of fear, where-as I post almost every time I check the thread to react to whats happened so far.

Unvote
Vote Christophoros
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Carlington » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:59 am UTC

Fair enough. Well, my suspicions about you have been assuaged a little bit, so I'm revising to BF: Neutral.

Also, since he's reading more scummy today, and I have actual reasons:

Vote: wam
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby BoomFrog » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:24 am UTC

Suzaku: Suzaku reads town for the most part, however I don't know that I believe his reason for lacking content - he can't post now, he has to go to a meeting, but looking at the timestamps, he's posting in this thread again 15 minutes later. Neutral, leaning slightly scum.
It struck me that I should reply about this. It is an unwritten rule that real life issues should never be lied about even for scum. Perhaps we should actually write that rule down... :roll: So assume Suzaku is being truthful about being busy in RL. What is your new evaluation?
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Lataro's Simple Fun D2: Dead People

Postby Carlington » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:30 am UTC

I wasn't aware of that rule - thanks for pointing it out BF, and I hope I didn't cause any offence to you, Suzaku.
Bearing this in mind, Suzaku reads town.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.


Return to “Mafia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests