M81: A Night To Remember [GAME THREAD]

[Kakarroto]

I think I was most taken aback by aaro saying that meta, and using evidence from past games should not be used in hunting proceedings.

I have never heard of anyone taking a stance that making cases based on past game data was unfair, or disallowed. It kind of comes off as sour grapes on Hamilton.

The statement that I should only be hunting based on hunting, and that the way I cased Hamilton was "unfair" somehow.

If anyone else feels this way by all means let me know, and let me know if you think its unsportsmanlike to use meta, to use old game data, to use volume data from past games. ect

It's absolutely unfair to use any posts I made in a game to read me as mafia, that's just unsportsmanlike, I mean, the post I just made 10 minutes ago? How could you be so unfair and use it against me!

[worcej]

Someone agree with me on aaro please.

I don't want to because of spite.







But it's solid.

[brainbomb]

savage really

[ghug]

Someone agree with me on aaro please.

I don't want to because of spite.







But it's solid.

Ah shit, maybe I'm wrong.

[brainbomb]

No I think youve got this one ghug and you have my support.

[aarodactyl]

I think I was most taken aback by aaro saying that meta, and using evidence from past games should not be used in hunting proceedings.

I have never heard of anyone taking a stance that making cases based on past game data was unfair, or disallowed. It kind of comes off as sour grapes on Hamilton.

The statement that I should only be hunting based on hunting, and that the way I cased Hamilton was "unfair" somehow.

If anyone else feels this way by all means let me know, and let me know if you think its unsportsmanlike to use meta, to use old game data, to use volume data from past games. ect

Ok. I still have to respond to ghug but this post makes me a bit worked up so I’m responding to it first. It is perfectly fine to use impressions of players from prior games. That is why I told you I trusted your hunch.

I am also fine using information from old games given that you can show it’s statistically significant. If you just pull a single data point, you’re prone to (subconscious) cherry-picking.

For example, I could think back to a test I took and think “I did well on that test and I remember having a bagel for breakfast”. That doesn’t mean eating bagels and test scores has a casual relationship. It may not even be correlated.

Which is all to say, I trusted your read on HB but I thought your evidence wasn’t significant. That gave me enough to be suspicious but not enough to vote them. I only switched with a minute left because I was worried about a tie.

[worcej]

Someone agree with me on aaro please.

I don't want to because of spite.







But it's solid.

Ah shit, maybe I'm wrong.

We're all mostly broken clocks.

[aarodactyl]

I'd like to see Aaro reply.

I had an all staff meeting for the last two hours. I’m catching up on the thread now. I can respond to what ghug is saying but it might be better use of all of our time if you can things you want me to clarify, rather than just pointing at the whole post.

Unless you find my characterizations of your posting inaccurate, it's really just that you've voiced one read all night and the non-bulleted part of the big post.

I think a bit of the characterization was unfair but I’ll look back in a minute to respond to that in particular.

I will say that I don’t see much value is giving reads at night in a game with a ghost mechanic and no town PR. That’s essentially just giving mafia info (though they’ll likely just kill kak anyways).

[brainbomb]

Ok. I still have to respond to ghug but this post makes me a bit worked up so I’m responding to it first. It is perfectly fine to use impressions of players from prior games. That is why I told you I trusted your hunch.

You did not trust my hunch. you told me to have hunches and not to verify them using past games. and stick to hunches.

I am also fine using information from old games given that you can show it’s statistically significant. If you just pull a single data point, you’re prone to (subconscious) cherry-picking.

I showed examples from a town game, a scum game and a 3p game. I explained why his current game more resembled his scumgame.

For example, I could think back to a test I took and think “I did well on that test and I remember having a bagel for breakfast”. That doesn’t mean eating bagels and test scores has a casual relationship. It may not even be correlated.

This would be like me showing you there is cyanide in the cream cheese on the bagel, gave you examples of people dying from the cyanide, and you telling me that people dying in the past from eating these bagels doesnt mean anything.

Which is all to say, I trusted your read on HB but I thought your evidence wasn’t significant. That gave me enough to be suspicious but not enough to vote them. I only switched with a minute left because I was worried about a tie.

you wanted vecna to die supposedly, was a tie a bigger worry than your big scumread dying?

[aarodactyl]

http://mafia.peterlund.se/e/web/msgs?g= ... aarodactyl

a brief cursory glance and I see right away, aaro using meta to defend people as town.

Use mafia.peterlund.se
search messages
user: aarodactyl
Words: Last Game

http://mafia.peterlund.se/e/web/msgs?us ... +game&g=63

For someone who hates previous game data points to play, he used previous game data points through 6 day phases of gameplay to establish townreads

That game was 2.5 years ago and I was PR and trying to toe the line between not getting day or night killed. I generally also felt pressured to give opinions on every other player and was also trying to not give away who I scanned.

That said, it’s highly likely that I thought it was a decent argument at the time. In retrospect, it probably wasn’t. But as I’ve said, impressions are alright but they’re just impressions. My issue with what you said was that you were selling it like it was bullet proof logic.

[Kakarroto]

[...]
This isnt fair to say about my voting overall.
[...]

I wasn't refering to your overall voting, I was refering to your behaviour towards HB.

I guess maybe you could argue I drove up a vecna wagon and then left it. But other than that comparing my voting habits and posts to ezio is a toxic nasty thing to claim about my play this game.

I'm comparing YOUR WORDS with YOUR ACTIONS (and that of others that seemed similar).

Not going down the "toxic nasty" road and I heavily suggest you reconsider your wording. I may be wrong and did a mistake here and maybe comparing those actions are somewhat flawed, but from MY PERSPECTIVE those three actions looked similar enough to compare and deem on about the same level.

If you think I'm toxic or nasty or something like this EVER, you need to question why you think this about me. I try my best to have a fun game for everyone (well, maybe not my "best" best since I'm not 24/7 analysing and plan my life around mafia and the community but my best in every situation) (and of course I try to be a good player too), so hearing someone saying that about me fills me with sadness. I'm not perfect and I do have my moments (mostly when I'm angry or frustrated at something, most of them myself), but I do not think in this situation it fits.

So to clarify if you misunderstood something: as Jamie said, your actions of mafreading, making the case against HB and then not voting him when he is one of the big options for the dayvote and then him being actually the wagon that flips and him flipping mafia just doesn't look good on you, brain. It has the same air as Vecna who posted his mafreads and didn't vote for either even when pressured. Or Ezio who as you said pushed and then left wagons.

There might be variations in behaviour because the target is not always mafia or town, but it all has the air of not being behind the own reads, not following through. As far as I can tell from my perspective.

Nothing nasty or toxic intended.

[aarodactyl]

Ok. I still have to respond to ghug but this post makes me a bit worked up so I’m responding to it first. It is perfectly fine to use impressions of players from prior games. That is why I told you I trusted your hunch.

You did not trust my hunch. you told me to have hunches and not to verify them using past games. and stick to hunches.

I am also fine using information from old games given that you can show it’s statistically significant. If you just pull a single data point, you’re prone to (subconscious) cherry-picking.

I showed examples from a town game, a scum game and a 3p game. I explained why his current game more resembled his scumgame.

For example, I could think back to a test I took and think “I did well on that test and I remember having a bagel for breakfast”. That doesn’t mean eating bagels and test scores has a casual relationship. It may not even be correlated.

This would be like me showing you there is cyanide in the cream cheese on the bagel, gave you examples of people dying from the cyanide, and you telling me that people dying in the past from eating these bagels doesnt mean anything.

Which is all to say, I trusted your read on HB but I thought your evidence wasn’t significant. That gave me enough to be suspicious but not enough to vote them. I only switched with a minute left because I was worried about a tie.

you wanted vecna to die supposedly, was a tie a bigger worry than your big scumread dying?

I don’t consider that level of evidence to be that statistically significant and I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Vecna wasn’t my big scumread by eod. Maybe I got fooled but when they showed about an hour before eod, I got a lot less suspicious of them. Ghug was (and still is) my main scum read. That said, I philosophically believe that D1 is going to be a lot of random guessing, so yes, I’d rather have HB die (who I scum leaned because of you) die over getting tie even if that means ghug didn’t get voted out.

[brainbomb]

@Kak

poor choice of words on my part. I dont agree with comparing one read of mine to 6 reads of ezio’s and saying Im not allowed to say he did something scummy.

I absolutely did not do what he did and I showed you that I didnt.

I verified that I didnt. So I was incensed at the comparison and dismissal of my case on those grounds.

[Kakarroto]

[...]
I think it looks good for Jamiet. At the very least, we can conclude that Jamiet and ghug are not partners.

In addition to the pairs we know, I don't think Jamie-Brain is a pair, and I also don't think Damo-Brain is a pair.

I also posted earlier in the day that I think that damo-Jamie isn't a maf-pair either because of their behaviour when they are voting first together and then each other (though ghug said that says more about me than the pairing chances of the two, so maybe you don't agree with me that that pair is possible)

so that leaves us with un-pairs:
ghug / aaro
jamie / sweet
brain / RD
worcej / Chaqa
Vecna / Ezio
damo / RHK

jamie / ghug
damo / brain
damo / jamie (?)

----------------------

interesting that jamie and damo are so often mentioned. that would mean that:

jamie can't be with sweet, ghug and damo
damo can't be with RHK, brain and jamie

maybe there is also something in the voting behaviour that make jamie or damo even less likely to be maf-partner with others. If we push that to the max, we might even get a townclear or two out of that. I don't think I'll be able to do that in the remaining 2 hours of the night, so if anyone wants to volunteer, I'd appreciate that.

Also, on a (completely) other note, I had an idea of testing Chaqa's 50/50 ability; to use that list and make a quick-guess situation where chaqa is presented with a team and then guesses who is mafia of both (or neither). In the capacity of this forumchat it's unrealistic to do so, but maybe in a reaction test with his dance partner there is something to gain here?

Just a thought.

[brainbomb]

just one last thing here.

@kak, there is a sizeable chance you and I end up together in a ghost chat by day 3, and I want to make sure that were fine. I get that you think im scum, but im not. So youll have to share a living room with me possibly as early as saturday night. And I want the couch.

[aarodactyl]

Going to do my best at going through this. I will say that even if Ao focused on mechanics, I considered a lot of the pro-claiming stubbornness to be pro scum in an attempt to distract from other conversations.

If I don’t mention something directly, I probably agree it with the characterization.

Day one, aaro's expressions of opinions on alignments were as follows:

• A naked vote on worcej for claiming his partner.

• On S&C, prompted by Ezio: "I think he’s playing well and is agreeing with me. Unfortunately, I’ve never played with him before so it’s hard to know if that’s a towny or just neutral. I don’t get scummy vibes though."

• A naked vote on Vecna I think for being bad at math.

• Some reinforcement of the Vecna scumread as being vibes in addition to math

My issue here was half the bad math being uncharacteristic of vecna. The other half was that I think their response came out of nowhere and seemed like it was trying to be a distraction. I later added on that low posting seemed scummy.

• A summary of opinions with certainly that I'm scum, scumleans on Vecna, worcej, and maybe damo, and a null on brain with a refusal to vote him because his posting is good for town. (Side note, I think this makes aaro/brain unlikely.

• Thinks Chaqa is dumb or scum, presumably because of the partner claiming.

That’s not why I voted chaqa. He made another suggestion that I considered pro-scum. It’s nothing strong enough that I need to use it in a case against chaqa (which I don’t really have). It annoyed me though.

• "I think people that pushed claiming likely contain at least one scum."

• Reiterates the Vecna scumread for absence and says Rd is similar.

• Joke townreads brain on contraction theory.

Contradiction theory is the best things to come out of this website.

I also looked over his old games and saw he used fewer letters per word when he’s scum (corollary of the contraction theory) and that his word lengths are in his town range. But then I decided that was dumb and meaningless. If someone is really bored, I think it’s a fun thing to compile, albeit heavily influenced by player names.

• Talks about trusting brain's hunch on HB but not his case, and doesn't really vote or mention HB directly.

• Votes Kak for reviving the math discussion.

• Scumreads me again, saying the scumread on worcej has faded and that he'd consider HB.

Yeah. I realized my worcej read was mostly out of a reaction to his stubbornness at start of game.

You were my first scum read this game so as you noted, that’s not a change. Maybe it’s influenced by the mechanics but only time will tell I guess.

• Agrees with Jamie that brain looks bad for not following through on HB.

• Votes me.

• Votes Hamilton at the end.

.

To summarize, that's nine scumreads and zero townreads, with four of those scumreads (worcej, Vecna, Chaqa, Kak) based probably on mechanics and three others (damo, Rd, and brain) only mentioned once in passing.

I was giving aaro a bit of a pass for this early on because he was clearly very excited about the setup, but at this point it seems pretty clear that he's not really trying to solve.

Ok. I will say that I don’t scum read brain for not being on HB. I think it’s weird but I also buy that he was out (which wasn’t shared until after I said it was weird).

I’m pretty sure I said I town read brain at some point so I’m confused why you’re saying I thought he was scum. But maybe I forgetting something.

Like I said to start, I think saying my reads were based on mechanics is not accurate. It’s based on how they were using the existence of mechanics/math to influence discussion (for kak, vecna) or them claiming things (worcej, chaqa). I think that’s an important distinction.

I only mentioned rd as because weird because he didn’t vote for most of the phase (unless I’m forgetting something). That’s hardly something that should be counted as a scum read.

I’m behind on work now so see you all later I guess.

[Kakarroto]

@Kak

poor choice of words on my part. I dont agree with comparing one read of mine to 6 reads of ezio’s and saying Im not allowed to say he did something scummy.

I absolutely did not do what he did and I showed you that I didnt.

I verified that I didnt. So I was incensed at the comparison and dismissal of my case on those grounds.

Alright, I accept the poor choice of words part wholly, I'm glad that it's not making any bad blood because it never was intended to do so.

Oh I don't say it isn't "scummy"(I don't like using the word but it's the best here for description purposes), I'm saying it isn't *inherent* mafia alignment indictive. You are fully free to read ezio being mafia for this, I totally have no problem with that.

Well, in a 100% technical sense, no you didn't do exactly as he did. But that wasn't my point and not my perspective. And I can't see into your head and read your thoughts, as much at that would help playing mafia, and I neither know your alignment so I can't derive from that.

But from a broader sense and without knowledge of alignment or thoughts behind (which the explanation of still could be doctored with or lied about), at least during the time, it looks comparative as an idea of pushing and not being behind the push.

With that said, I have my thoughts about it and will include them later. I think you've explained yourself well enough for your perspective, it's just that I'm not you and have another.

[ghug]

[snip]
I’m behind on work now so see you all later I guess.

1. Townreading brain was your one read tonight, which I pointed out separately. This post was looking at D1, where you townread nobody.
2. The rest of this I see as nitpicking. Nothing you're saying really disagrees fundamentally with anything I'm saying. You scumread a lot of people, you're very focused on mechanics and using discussions around them to inform most of your reads, and you've avoided townreading anyone.

You certainly know Kak is dying tonight. Why can't you just give us your thoughts on the game now?

[aarodactyl]

[snip]
I’m behind on work now so see you all later I guess.

1. Townreading brain was your one read tonight, which I pointed out separately. This post was looking at D1, where you townread nobody.
2. The rest of this I see as nitpicking. Nothing you're saying really disagrees fundamentally with anything I'm saying. You scumread a lot of people, you're very focused on mechanics and using discussions around them to inform most of your reads, and you've avoided townreading anyone.

You certainly know Kak is dying tonight. Why can't you just give us your thoughts on the game now?

I’m pretty sure I townread brain night one. But I agree that’s nitpicking.

I think focusing on mechanics and things around them is a perfectly fine D1 tactic. I think it’s also easier to point out suspicious things than to is to make town claims. I can try to figure out more.

I honestly haven’t had time to really think about the current game state much and haven’t prioritized it much since it’s still the night phase. I’m also still mulling over what’s anti town to share or not. I think the ship has likely sailed but waiting until d2 makes it so mafia can’t discuss what I’m thinking about until N2.

But also, I admit I’m not being a huge town asset. I think that’s generally hard to do but hopefully I’ll improve.

[Kakarroto]

Another thought I had during the day was: what to do if a living player has a question towards a dead person (gee, why would I think that)? Dead Players only have 100 letters so they have limited space and don't want to waste it refering to a question.

So I came up with an idea of referencing that question. I thought the shortest way is to implement these brackets [] as a start/end; then, the first part would be the player number from edens list at the start plus the first letter of someones name (for example, it would be 2K for me since I was second); then I'm a bit torn: either, the next is the number of questions asked (so starting with 1) OR the page the question was asked on (like here 73). The first one is shorter (possibly) and you can refer to more questions within a page, but it might be a hassle to search for the original question (though that might be an issue for you peterbot users). Also people might lose track of the numbers if they had asked too many questions. The other one is using more space and you can't question as many since they will have the same reference number.

Though I think the 'current number' system is better, but you might disagree. So for now lets test it by asking the dead people:

[2K1]Sissi, how could you do this to me?

Regarding the answer length, I also thought "hmm, that might eat much space of the message", so why not give some options for the answer, like

a) It's mafia-time, baby
b) Sorry I didn't want tooo
c) blame Eden, I hate it when I'm mafia
d) just dance
e) nothing of the above, explain in your own words

I don't know if there will be many questions towards the dead player chat, but IF there is, I suggest you all using this system.