xkcd

by **tastelikecoke** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:32 pm UTC

EBWOP: "paranoid about your how scummy look." should be "paranoid about how scummy you look." :oops:

by **b.i.o** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:37 pm UTC

I'd rather not start discussing the details of my role since that's liable to lose me my vote. All I'll say is that I'd appreciate any clues that could be passed on to me.

roband wrote:We need something to kick this game into action, and I'm not talking about 'those 3 questions'. Anyone got ideas?

This is always a problem D1, I'm not really sure why you're specifically pointing it out in this game.

Currently ConMan strikes me as confused rather than scummy.

I got some weird vibes from BoomFrog's one post, but that's not quite enough for me to want to vote, even on a relatively quiet D1.

A townie shouldn't be worried on what his coat would look like if it's drenched in blood.

That doesn't really make any sense. Townies have to worry about not appearing scummy too, especially if they're power roles. If the town just acts like scum, they make it easier for the scum to hide.

by **Adam H** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:55 pm UTC

Unfortunately bio, I cannot help you in your search for the beast. Can I ask you if you came up with that rhyme yourself, and if so, how much time did you spend on it? If it was well thought out, there could be some use in analysis.

roband wrote:We need something to kick this game into action, and I'm not talking about 'those 3 questions'. Anyone got ideas?

OK, I got it. Everyone claims their role, and votes for the person below them on the player list. Then we see who lied about their role! Weeeeeeeee!!!

Or we could NL, or we could random lynch, or we could just lynch me for offering up such delightful suggestions.

by **b.i.o** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:21 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:Can I ask you if you came up with that rhyme yourself, and if so, how much time did you spend on it? If it was well thought out, there could be some use in analysis.

Yes, and I really don't remember at all. Probably about fifteen minutes.

Or we could NL, or we could random lynch, or we could just lynch me for offering up such delightful suggestions.

Yeah really, the only one of these that's at all appealing is the last one. NL is stupid, because it gets us no information. Random lynch is stupid because it gets us no information *and* has greater odds of killing a townie than scum.

Even a badly justified lynch gets us more information than either of the first two.

by **ConMan** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:28 pm UTC

Ok, now that b.i.o seems to be genuinely suggesting that he was just exposing a bit of his role in a flavour-ful way, I'm a bit less suspicious. But still paranoid - I don't think I'm ever going to manage to avoid that.

My FoS, which I will now Un-FoS, was probably more like an IGMEOY. My thinking (and once again even I find my writing hard to follow - maybe I should stop trying to say anything until I can work out how to say it properly) was something along the lines of:

* By revealing information about your role, you are making it easier for the person who sent your role to identify you.
* If that person is on another team to you, then they now have information that can be used to their advantage.
* If you do so on purpose, and voluntarily, then this suggests that you either already know that the person who sent it is on your side, or the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.
* By making his opening post so blatant, b.i.o has effectively advertised his role rather than taking the chance that he could satisfy any posting restrictions while not looking too suspicious (although obviously that does depend on the posting restriction being easy to work around, which defeats the purpose of it, which is probably one of the biggest holes in my logic)
* Therefore, either b.i.o already knows that the person who sent his role is on his team (implying scum), or it doesn't matter to him if they aren't since he gains more from having his role publicly known (which, when it comes to power roles, isn't usually the case for town).

So, my logic fell over first in suggesting that he could have been more subtle to appease a posting restriction, and secondly in ignoring the possibility that by meeting a posting requirement he may gain some kind of benefit - in this case, there does seem to be a suggestion that he gets something if he succeeds in his hunt, so I don't know.

by **Vieto** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:30 pm UTC

yeah, I have to agree with B.I.O. that random lynches and NL are terrible ideas, in that they don't give us any useful information. In addition, revealing power roles is a terrible idea, because it allows the mafia to be selective with their targets. On a side note, IGMEOY: Adam H, for the above reasons.

Also, I'm glad that isn't actually a post restriction.

edit: ninja'd by conman

by **ConMan** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:38 pm UTC

(Ninja'd by Vieto in this, btw.)

Just a little quote-sniping, as I noticed a couple of things:

b.i.o wrote:I'd rather not start discussing the details of my role since that's liable to lose me my vote. All I'll say is that I'd appreciate any clues that could be passed on to me.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure you only lose your vote if you reveal details about the role you sent, not the role you are. Unless that's actually part of the role you got, or unless something about your role relates to the role you sent. Something like a lyncher for the person you sent a role to? Feel free to not answer that if you're worried it's skirting too close to whatever.

tastelikecoke wrote:
ConMan wrote: It's hard to add to the topic at hand when a dozen other people, most of whom have much more experience at Mafia, have already posted.

Are you sure? Half of the players haven't posted yet when you pressed submit... It's likely you're not creative enough and paranoid about your how scummy look. Added to that, being paranoid about how scummy you look is really scummy. A townie shouldn't be worried on what his coat would look like if it's drenched in blood.

When I made my ... second post, I think it was, I did a quick list of players and crossed off the ones who had posted. The only ones we had been waiting on were Adam H and b.i.o, and they're both in now. Probably when I made my first post there were a couple more, but that doesn't mean that the first few posts hadn't already covered a lot of the thoughts I'd already had.

And yes, I will now quickly go back and check who had and hadn't posted at each point, but I will also go away and think for a little while so I stop saying things that paint a great big target on my chest. Because so far my posts seem to have oscillated between contributing nothing, being confused in a way that draws attention to myself, and defending myself, and that's no way to act no matter what team I'm on.

by **ConMan** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:58 pm UTC

ConMan wrote:And yes, I will now quickly go back and check who had and hadn't posted at each point, but I will also go away and think for a little while so I stop saying things that paint a great big target on my chest. Because so far my posts seem to have oscillated between contributing nothing, being confused in a way that draws attention to myself, and defending myself, and that's no way to act no matter what team I'm on.

So yep, did a quick check, and by my first post only four people hadn't joined in yet.

Anyway, nothing is really jumping out at me yet. Adam H and b.i.o can apparently speak crazy-ConMan-language, since they had a bit of an understanding of where my addled brain was going with those posts. Which makes them feel at least a little townie to me, since it does put them on my side. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who found me confusing is scummy.

by **mpolo** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:51 am UTC

Welcome back to the land of the coherent, b.i.o!

I'm a little worried by the trying to spin b.i.o's semi-openness as scummy. Especially with a wild game like this one, there could be any number of townie roles that would benefit from being at least partially known. But there needs to be moderation and caution here as well, because we don't want a power role to just get night-killed.

A random lynch that is truly random is pretty useless (unless that person had randomly let slip something that links him to others on re-reading). We need to be able to analyze the voting patterns and opinions of others.

I guess it's getting to be time to start analyzing everyone; Wednesdays are my least-free day, however, so I will probably not get a lot done today.

by **tastelikecoke** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:59 am UTC

b.i.o wrote:That doesn't really make any sense. Townies have to worry about not appearing scummy too, especially if they're power roles. If the town just acts like scum, they make it easier for the scum to hide.

But for sure it makes some marginal sense? Also, I agree Conman's looks more muddled than scummy, but this will stay in my mind; Conman should have been at least more original since only half of the players voiced their thoughts.

I've seen NL and Random lynches happen overnight in some other games, and they defaulted it as their best D1 option, so I'm having a bit of cognitive dissonance here. No-Lynch, in a game like this were there's a likely amount of vigs and serial killers can still be viable option if we couldn't care less about getting a suitable lynch target, letting the vigs do the information revealing thing. It would maximize the amount of gifts shared, and it would make one less person dissatisfied about dying N1. I'm sure this suggestion will leave people with knotted eyebrows here.

I think the repulsive feeling of NL apart from no-info is that it's passive and we're not really trying to find scum, and since D1 reveals a lot of things on hindsight, a NL would give scum more chance to hide. But I've seen No-lynch work with scum finding sometimes.

by **roband** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:03 am UTC

bio - the situation seemed particularly likely in this game, from what had been posted so far.

On ConMan - he misread, pushed with it because no-one pointed out his mistake (which I don't get) and then realised when I bought it up. A mistake, from him, nothing more.

A NL doesn't seem right, as you pointed out tlc, any info is better than none. And if the numbers which we've predicted are correct, we have better than 1/3 odds of lynching a baddie.
That gives us the ability to look back at D1 later on, for links or distancing etc.

On the 'roleclaim, vote for the person below you and see who lied' - I've said before that I don't like systems like this. I like how it works, but it takes the fun out of the game, no? Also, I'd be shocked if Misnomer didn't punish us ALL for roleclaiming. bio will find this suspicious, because that's WHY he suggested the idea, to find out who opposed it (scum wouldn't want it happening, obv) - but it's just my tuppence.

by **ForAllOfThis** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:28 am UTC

Mod: What are the exact restrictions on claiming sent roles? Would saying I think xxxx is a bad idea because of the role I sent in be overstepping the rule, despite no claim of abilities or role name being made?

I'll wait to see the mods response above before I continue with the line of thought I'm having.

Seems conman is trying hard to get some analysis & opinions in since I said I found him suspicous which is good (whatever his alignment is) so has improved his overall townieness in my eyes.

@TLC: I agree with bio on this one, a townie looking scummy can cost town the game sometimes. Look at Lataro, almost gets lynched every game because he acts scummy and non co-operative as town.

I think the NL/Random Lynch ideas are terrible and slightly suspicous of those advocating them. Also, how will a random lynch work without a confirmed townie (unless it's an actual vote option?) because someone will have to choose a random number to decide the target, and if that person is scum I doubt it will be random. Then there's the issue that it actually takes a large point away from the game (deciding on a lynch target).

by **ForAllOfThis** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:29 am UTC

EBWOP: Mod: What are the exact restrictions on claiming sent roles? Would saying I think xxxx is a bad idea because of the role I sent in be overstepping the rule, despite no claim of abilities or role name being made?

Meant to be bolded not quoted <.<.

by **roband** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:35 am UTC

Edit to my above post - it was AdamH who suggested the 'vote the person below you' tactic, not bio.

by **tastelikecoke** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:10 pm UTC

roband wrote:A NL doesn't seem right, as you pointed out tlc, any info is better than none.

I am are by no means pointing out something. I actually asking why players think a NL would be bad.

roband wrote:On the 'roleclaim, vote for the person below you and see who lied' ... takes the fun out ...

One would have to roleclaim the sent role, not the received role to lose voting powers if I interpreted the rule accurately. It's likely that no one would even bother to lie since it's what they submitted, not the role they have. And if everyone roleclaimed their received role, it'll be just a plain massclaim. Adam H's plan doesn't even work.

by **tastelikecoke** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:12 pm UTC

EBWOP: * I am by no means pointing out something. I am actually asking why players think a NL would be bad.

by **AngrySquirrel** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:35 pm UTC

tastelikecoke wrote:EBWOP: * I am by no means pointing out something. I am actually asking why players think a NL would be bad.

Yes, we can sit around, do nothing and hope a power-role comes swooping in to save us, but we've got no guarantees that's going to happen, and that's basically what NL is. It is a passive approach that leaves us with significantly less information on day 2 than what even a random lynch does. In a worse case scenario, a NL gives us two day 1s, only the second one will be with fewer townies.

by **roband** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:44 pm UTC

^ What she said ^

by **mpolo** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:24 pm UTC

I think that no-lynch is very seldom a viable strategy (exceptions would be Dethy and when there are four players left and one scum among them). In this setup, we don't even know if there are power roles (of the proper sort) to help us out along the way. I don't think giving up our only avenue for guaranteed information is in any way worth discussing at this point.

by **ConMan** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:27 pm UTC

AngrySquirrel wrote:Yes, we can sit around, do nothing and hope a power-role comes swooping in to save us, but we've got no guarantees that's going to happen, and that's basically what NL is.

Not to mention, there's a good chance whoever comes swooping in does just as bad, if not worse, than a random lynch. Sure a vig can get a kill in, but they're working on the same info the lynch does, meaning they've got as good a chance at killing town. Perhaps other power roles might have a little better luck, but I agree that this is not the kind of scenario where a D1 NL is going to do much to help town.

by **Adam H** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:07 pm UTC

All it takes to NL is getting more NL votes than anyone else has on them. This would probably mean just 3-4 NL votes. Are you guys telling me that we get very little information from votals that look like 'NL: 3; player x: 2; player y: 2; player z: 1'? First, we would know that those voting for players x, y, and z actually would prefer a NL over voting for the other options (contrary to, I assume, their vehement disagreement about NLing). I'm sure lots of other information could be gleaned later as well.

That said, I'm against a NL, mainly because doing things that we aren't comfortable with probably makes scumhunting harder, since player's reactions aren't as predictable. Although I like tastelikecoke's reaction more than I like the immediate dismissals from everyone else.

I'm definitely against random lynching, at least random lynching as you guys understand it. I meant it more as a "lynch that guy for a random reason" which is basically what happens D1 anyways.

And my totally awesome strategy of claiming and then voting for the person below you doesn't work at all (so sad). I misunderstood the roleclaim voting thing, though obviously we wouldn't have done it anyone. I just like to think of ways to break the game.

by **Misnomer** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:53 pm UTC

ForAllOfThis wrote:EBWOP: Mod: What are the exact restrictions on claiming sent roles? Would saying I think xxxx is a bad idea because of the role I sent in be overstepping the rule, despite no claim of abilities or role name being made?

I'm not going to answer questions like that. Each 'borderline' case of sent role claiming will be dealt with when it occurs. The rule is there not so much to add an extra challenge to the game, but because claiming sent roles is somewhat against the spirit of the game. You can if you are determined to, but there are likely to be consequences.

by **roband** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:01 pm UTC

Adam: Sure, but as soon as it seems like a NL is likely to happen, the scum will just vote NL too.

They're not going to allow themselves to stand out like that.

I'm arguing FOR scum here, what the hell? But basically, you seem to keep creating arguments/ideas which the baddies will easily avoid and obviously so. I don't get it.

by **roband** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

In fact...

Vote: AdamH

for twice suggesting ideas which will not aid us in any way. Making it look like you're coming up with content and good tactics, but twice having major flaws which mean scum won't stand out at all.

by **Adam H** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:35 pm UTC

roband wrote:Adam: Sure, but as soon as it seems like a NL is likely to happen, the scum will just vote NL too.

They're not going to allow themselves to stand out like that.

I'm not sure how the second paragraph follows from the first. Your argument seems to be 'because the scum doesn't want to stand out, they'll jump on the NL bandwagon'. But since we apparently know that's a scumtell, we can just lynch whoever jumped on the NL bandwagon. But then scum knows that it's a scumtell and so they won't do it. The wine goes around and around, and in fact is my reason for not wanting a NL - because we have little experience for how this plays out practically, it's difficult to tell where the wine ends and what actions the scum are comfortable taking. Whereas if we have 2 players up for a lynch, and the lynched player comes up town, then that's a situation we are more comfortable with and can judge players more accurately.

roband wrote:I'm arguing FOR scum here, what the hell?

If this is directed at me, sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Twice I suggested ideas? When was the second time? Are you referring to my last post, when I said "I'm against a NL" and "I'm definitely against random lynching"?

by **roband** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

1. The roleclaim and vote scenario.
2. That voting for NL will provide info in the future.

by **Adam H** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:23 pm UTC

Why didn't you add random lynching or lynching me to your list of useless things I suggested? It's true, I was suggesting things that I did not think would help town. However I thought I made it pretty clear that I am against those suggestions and was just trying to help the conversation move along... so from my perspective you just voted a townie because he talked, and that is about as scummy as it gets.

But anyways I think that further discussion of NL or any of my other 'suggestions' isn't helpful and we can try and draw out scum some other way. I certainly do not want to derail the conversation.

by **Adam H** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:33 pm UTC

EBWOP: Hmmm after reading the last several posts in order, I don't think my last paragraph above came off how I intended. I got the impression from roband that he thought I was derailing the conversation with my stupid idea, and that was what I was referring to. If there's more to discuss, please discuss it - I was certainly not trying to avoid talking about why anyone finds me scummy.

by **ConMan** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:06 am UTC

A deadline at 4pm on Saturday by US time is some time Sunday morning for me, and my weekends tend to be spent away from the fora - as such, there's a good chance I won't see anything develop between this time tomorrow and the deadline. Because of that, I want to gather as much information as I can in the next 24 hours to make a half-way decent vote.

Currently, nobody is standing out as being really scummy - I agree with roband that Adam is throwing out some pretty bad ideas, and is now backtracking and saying "I was just putting them out to generate discussion". Pretty much everyone else is hovering between neutral and slightly townie, so really not much to go on. So much seems to depend on the roles that are out there, and clearly nobody's in favour of a mass claim. But are there any parts of roles anyone *is* willing to admit to? In particular, since I'm worried about where to put my vote, does anyone have any vote-affecting components that I may want to worry about?

(This is as much an attempt to generate some decent content as anything else - I don't expect everyone to pipe up and say exactly how their vote works, but it might give us something to look out for.)

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:58 am UTC

roband wrote:In fact...

Vote: AdamH

for twice suggesting ideas which will not aid us in any way. Making it look like you're coming up with content and good tactics, but twice having major flaws which mean scum won't stand out at all.

Well, I was going to come in and do a big ol' analysis of the thread, so, I have to thank you for saving me some trouble. I think it's pretty clear that AdamH was just trying to stir the pot and get some discussion going. He obviously knew his ideas where terrible when he posted them. Not to mention Adam does "scummy" things like this D1 pretty much all the time. I think your vote is very poorly justified.

Vote: Roband

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:14 am UTC

Oh and EBWOP: @AdamH: I actually like to put the game in an unusual situation because town can react naturally but scum have to double think about how to deal with the unique problem and can make mistakes. If the game is just like every other game then they can simply act like they did as a townie from their past townie experience.

by **roband** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:10 am UTC

It didn't seem like discussion starting to me. It seemed like intentional bad ideas were being put forward for consideration.

With those bad ideas, all it takes is for one person to take a hold and the rest of the game tends to follow.

I've been ill all this week and not posting anywhere near as much as usual, but when I have posted I've tried to suggest good ideas and point out flaws. Adam has just suggested bad ideas.

Also, BoomFrog - me thinking Adam deserves a vote doesn't mean you shouldn't do an analysis post. Way to come off as defending your scum buddy AND being too lazy to do the post which you were intending to make you look townie...

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:38 am UTC

It's not lazyness, I spent my time productively elsewhere as it was not needed here.

roband wrote:With those bad ideas, all it takes is for one person to take a hold and the rest of the game tends to follow.

I'd have loved for that to happen. A bunch of scum would have outed themselves.

by **roband** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:42 am UTC

What? They were bad ideas because they WOULDN'T out scum...

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:45 am UTC

If a bunch of people had agreed with a bad idea some of them would be scum. Kinda like when a bunch of people decide to lynch someone and they flip town. It'd be one more thing to analyse.

by **roband** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:47 am UTC

So one of the people who agreed with the idea could be scum, why wouldn't the person who suggested it?

You defended Adam and now it sounds like you're criticising him.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:17 am UTC

It's all about the context and reasons they have to agree with an idea (or lynch). The first and generally second person on a bad idea or lynch are often inoocent. Of course you can never make a hard rule in scum hunting. If you actually read his post his bad ideas are not put forth seriously. Hmm, I've just had an interesting idea, but I've got to go now. I'll be back tomorrow. Don't make any final lynch decisions without me.

by **tastelikecoke** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:44 am UTC

Well if Adam locked up his bad ideas inside his brain it wouldn't really be nice. But it isn't really a townie thing to do either, since it will lead townies to the wrong path. BF said something like this is frequent, but that's meta and I'm not acquainted to Adam H's behavior. I really don't think it's more of being scum. It's more to the melody of "I should make content! Let's post this without even checking if it's valid or not". That doesn't come off strong to me.

But I don't like how Adam H's posts read though. It's a package trying to tie the bad idea with probabilities and more invalid suggestions. For example, here:

Adam H wrote:All it takes to NL is getting more NL votes than anyone else has on them. This would probably mean just 3-4 NL votes. Are you guys telling me that we get very little information from votals that look like 'NL: 3; player x: 2; player y: 2; player z: 1'? First, we would know that those voting for players x, y, and z actually would prefer a NL over voting for the other options (contrary to, I assume, their vehement disagreement about NLing).

About that vehement disagreement about NLing, isn't that the only thing that you actually got right?

Say 5 players are disagreeing with who to vote. When a player (or 3) drops by and vote for NL, that would be like asking to get hit in the face. The fact that we have x, y, and z in the votals mean that we now have an idea who to vote. Since everyone wants to resolve a disagreement by flipping their lynch target's alignment, and nobody gets lynched in a NL, it won't definitely get votes to most players. Nobody wants nothing to be resolved, especially if they have a lynch target.
And we don't get information either.

by **Misnomer** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:03 pm UTC

Votals:

Adam H (1): Roband
Roband (1): BoomFrog

Deadline on Saturday

by **Adam H** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:57 pm UTC

tastelikecoke wrote:Say 5 players are disagreeing with who to vote. When a player (or 3) drops by and vote for NL, that would be like asking to get hit in the face.

You're right. I wasn't thinking about how the votals would come about. I guess the only way that NL would narrowly edge out another player would be if a few players vote for NL before any other votes are put down, and then others voted for the NLers. And we'd all have to be really rushed at the deadline. Or something like that.

When I've played in real life we tend to make the rules so that if we don't get a consensus in votes then the mod can just end the day with a NL. But that does get the group good information - because no one is willing to switch votes even though they know that no one will be lynched if they don't. So with that in mind, it just rubbed me the wrong way how most of you immediately went to the party line (NL = no information) without seeming to actually put thought into it.

I probably won't be around on saturday so my last vote will probably be friday evening... lovely.

Out of curiosity:

What happens with tied votes?

Does hammering end the day? If not does it end the votes or can we unvote if someone hammers?

Who is online