MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]

[KoalaAttack]

One last post before I go:

While I am currently strongly in favor of following through on the binding vote (due to above reasoning), I did not understand from the posts last night the intention behind hammering. Can someone please explain that to me?

The reason I ask is – I thought you folks said that Townies gather info from interactions? Would it not make sense to just lock the votes end but still let the day run out?

Or is the worry that the voted-on person will use Jedi Mind Trick or Silence of The Lambs' style psychology jiu-jitsu to convince the group to move off the vote? "Lock it in"?

In practice, conversation dies once we've unanimously decided on a target, and it's often slow to get moving again after the kill if we let it go too long.

Thank you!

[damo666]

I'm back. Lot of catching up to do.

[yavuzovic]

Half an hour before the end of day, lfischl voted worcej, making it 3 wor 3 pyx from 3 pyx leading wagon.
> If lfischl is scum, I can say that worcej is 99% confirmed town.
> If worcej is scum, I can say that lfischl is 99% confirmed town.
Knowing pyx is town, I think lfischl gains towncredits from this move, since scum could just follow the majority consensus to eliminate pyxxy without looking sus.

[KoalaAttack]

Half an hour before the end of day, lfischl voted worcej, making it 3 wor 3 pyx from 3 pyx leading wagon.
> If lfischl is scum, I can say that worcej is 99% confirmed town.
> If worcej is scum, I can say that lfischl is 99% confirmed town.
Knowing pyx is town, I think lfischl gains towncredits from this move, since scum could just follow the majority consensus to eliminate pyxxy without looking sus.

I believe this logic is correct.

[KoalaAttack]

Half an hour before the end of day, lfischl voted worcej, making it 3 wor 3 pyx from 3 pyx leading wagon.
> If lfischl is scum, I can say that worcej is 99% confirmed town.
> If worcej is scum, I can say that lfischl is 99% confirmed town.
Knowing pyx is town, I think lfischl gains towncredits from this move, since scum could just follow the majority consensus to eliminate pyxxy without looking sus.

I believe this logic is correct.

Additionally – this logic would imply towncredits for yavuzovic with 99% confidence if the binding vote unveils worcej as Mafia for posting this post.

The reason being is – this is a 100% logic-driven argument, it must be either objectively correct or objectively incorrect. We should be able to verify as a group by working through the scenarios.

Note that it does not for myself for agreeing, nor for anyone else afterwards – as a Mafia-me could have just done as a defense mechanism that because I see no flaw in the logic.

And if the binding vote unveils that worcej is Town, I think it's a weaker but still Mafia-implication on yavuzovic

[KoalaAttack]

And if the binding vote unveils that worcej is Town, I think it's a weaker but still Mafia-implication on yavuzovic

The reason for the weaker Mafia implication being that in the situation of both worcej & lfischl being Town there is no logical inference, it could have been a coincidental earnest vote switch by a Townie onto another Townie.

[KoalaAttack]

And if the binding vote unveils that worcej is Town, I think it's a weaker but still Mafia-implication on yavuzovic

The reason for the weaker Mafia implication being that in the situation of both worcej & lfischl being Town there is no logical inference, it could have been a coincidental earnest vote switch by a Townie onto another Townie.

And yavuzovic could have either safely posted the above logic as a fake "helpful contribution" as a Mafia – or earnestly posted the same as a Townie

[yavuzovic]

And if the binding vote unveils that worcej is Town, I think it's a weaker but still Mafia-implication on yavuzovic

The reason for the weaker Mafia implication being that in the situation of both worcej & lfischl being Town there is no logical inference, it could have been a coincidental earnest vote switch by a Townie onto another Townie.

If worcej flips town, this doesn't put a scum credit on lfischl. My post only considers one of them being mafia, and is only valid if either one of them dies so we know the role. I don't understand how this is a mafia-implication on me.

[yavuzovic]

Also the latest bo vote is what made pyx the top wagon. This looks slightly bad, but then I also voted and if it happens to me, then I can see it is the same for bo. NAI for now; but if bo acts suspicious later, then this can be considered.

[KoalaAttack]

And if the binding vote unveils that worcej is Town, I think it's a weaker but still Mafia-implication on yavuzovic

The reason for the weaker Mafia implication being that in the situation of both worcej & lfischl being Town there is no logical inference, it could have been a coincidental earnest vote switch by a Townie onto another Townie.

If worcej flips town, this doesn't put a scum credit on lfischl. My post only considers one of them being mafia, and is only valid if either one of them dies so we know the role. I don't understand how this is a mafia-implication on me.

Thank you for asking to clarify this.

So it definitely does not at all from the perspective of cold hard logic.

But from a psychological perspective... Hard to put into words but I'll try: your Flawless [AFAICT] Logic post is definitely having the effect of making me want to follow through on the binding vote and see worcej unveiled even more! So, if worcej is unveiled as Townie you get tainted with the same weak-inference suspicion as I will for pushing my worcej hypothesis. In my case it's "maybe KoalaAttack was trying to help and made a mistake, maybe he wanted to sink a townie". In your case it's "maybe he shared this earnestly and got unlucky, or maybe he wanted to sink a townie".

Any time someone posts anything that helps make the case for an unveiling of a Townie there is a little sprinkle of probabilistic suspicion karma in my head :)

[KoalaAttack]

I think there should be a slight Mafia implication on myself in that scenario too BTW. I did push the hypothesis!

[yavuzovic]

I understand. Also I am writing while catching up and I barely made it to the point where people talk about the binding night vote. I don't see a problem with this so far but since I missed I can follow the top wagon, since this will grant the gambler an item. Was it worcej? (I will learn it in a few minutes from the thread so not necessarily a question)

[KoalaAttack]

I have an off-topic question only for math geeks, with apologies to everyone else:

At any point in the game, given X Townies and Y Mafia remaining, when a Townie is unveiled, is it possible to figure out an answer to the exact probabilities of

A) The pusher was a Townie who made an earnest mistake and/or got unlucky.

B) Intentional mafia ploy.

??

Or maybe doing probabilistic analysis is breaking the intent of the game? Should it even be done if possible?

[KoalaAttack]

I understand. Also I am writing while catching up and I barely made it to the point where people talk about the binding night vote. I don't see a problem with this so far but since I missed I can follow the top wagon, since this will grant the gambler an item. Was it worcej? (I will learn it in a few minutes from the thread so not necessarily a question)

And if you were Mafia this would be the perfect recovery by saying you posted before seeing the result of the vote (unverifiable by the rest of us) ... I like this game.

[yavuzovic]

I understand. Also I am writing while catching up and I barely made it to the point where people talk about the binding night vote. I don't see a problem with this so far but since I missed I can follow the top wagon, since this will grant the gambler an item. Was it worcej? (I will learn it in a few minutes from the thread so not necessarily a question)

And if you were Mafia this would be the perfect recovery by saying you posted before seeing the result of the vote (unverifiable by the rest of us) ... I like this game.

I wrote this before learning the result of the vote but I checked peterbot before so I knew worcej was the top wagon. I don't know how this information helps but here we are

[damo666]

I didn't miss much.

##vote worcej
##end

[yavuzovic]

I don't have a particular scumread on worcej but I think it is the best to move uniformly as town, and as KoalaAttack said I want to see worcej flip for information too. ##VOTE worcej

[damo666]

I said Brian was town.

[damo666]

If we are killing worcej we may as well hammer.

[Jamiet99uk]

VOTE COUNT 2.1

worcej (5) - KoalaAttack, Chaqa, bo_sox48, damo666(END), yavuzovic
Chaqa (1) - worcej
bo_sox48 (1) - ghug

Currently WORCEJ is set to be cut from the roster.

36 hours and a few minutes are left in Day Two.