MAFIA 75: TROUBLE AT THE PRECINCT [HIDDEN]

[bo_sox48]

Fair point; it wasn't "all" of day 1 but it was his only vote of day 1.

[bo_sox48]

I have to go so I'm dropping this a few minutes early.

I wrote this post before HB subbed in, so I apologize for those of you that wrongly thing a sub should not have to deal with the actions of their predecessor. I don’t think that. It is slightly reworded from its original state given the substitution but I’m still posting it.

I think we should give snowy an independent chance to prove the nature of their own slot and not base the reads on the slot on another player who was admittedly busy and clearly overwhelmed by the activity and expectations in this game and unready to balance it with other commitments.

I can vibe with that feeling too, joining a game because you want to play with a friend and immediately falling behind and feeling overwhelmed by other commitments

~~~

I’d like to hear what my doppelganger thinks about EOD1 and where this is headed. I know she’s expressed a strong preference not to judge snowy on Byz’s actions, and fair enough on that, but I’d at least like a take on EOD1 and how she would approach the game if Byz hadn’t subbed out. I would find that useful to sort her even if it’s largely moot given that she’s already said she will be giving snowy a fresh start.

The thoughts of a doppelganger

By the real Princess of Webdip

I still find the treatment of Byzs slot intresting on regards to how Celaph was approaching it early. I thought it was a mafia attempting to pocket a town.

That EoD was atrocious which is really confusing to me because up until the last hours of EoD I had largely looked at the slot and saw someone who was decidedly null but definitely not a Day 1 chop but I think that EoD largely felt scummy and I certainly would have applied pressure on Byz early tomorrow to see how they changed.

Which is why I want to give Snowy a chance though because up until the end of the phase I hadn't even looked at Byz one time as a potential chop.

I will certainly take the play of Byz in when reading Snowy but I just don't want us to come in already having decided on the slots guilt.

##Vote Snowy

##End

Okay I think I'm mostly okay with this slot just going the way of the dodo. They've not even attempted to contribute I'm willing to judge the slot on its own content but there just isn't any. They've shown no interest in doing much outside of very little questioning with no followup. They've shown no interest in learning how thread state got to where it is in general and in regard to their slot.

They've shown very little interest in defending themself like they know it's a foregone conclusion they will just die...ig that's NAI but I'd want a townie who subbed into a doomed slot to at least try to fight to dance their slot.

I could see from a scum perspective a world where Snowy took the Deathbomb and is just basically sitting on their death to take a towny with them but if the slot is scum as I think it is and against my better judgement as a player who likes to save every single townie I can I think this is the only option today.

In ~36 hours, Princess Neon went from suggesting we give snowy a chance to hammering snowy. In the meanwhile, she acknowledged that she didn’t find Byz scummy enough to judge snowy for it, but also states that she would have pressured Byz had Byz not subbed out. I don’t understand this - why pressure Byz but not pressure snowy? - but it’s not that important. What is important that Neon said that a read against Snowy would include analysis of Byz but it didn’t. At all. In fact, the quoted posts end with her second to last mention of Byz at all in the entire game. Why wasn’t Byz’ play important enough to find its way into the case against snowy?

Moving to the vote post, snowy led 6-2 in the tally when this vote happened, with PE and Vecna each at 2 (and Neon voting for PE). This made it 7-2-1. This vote wasn’t actually important, and yet, as I pointed out during the day, it came with a flimsy, longwinded explanation that just feels like shit so I want to examine it.

(Aside: Jamie jumped to Vecna at this point noting the runaway wagon, which made things somewhat competitive again and deserves towncred, so it didn’t last long.)

The bulk of the first paragraph seems to suggest snowy is lurking, or not contributing. I’m not sure which it really is. But snowy was the most frequent poster on day 2 by over 100 posts, and those posts didn’t start after Neon’s vote. So “they’ve not even attempted to contribute” and “I’m willing to judge the slot on its own content but there just isn’t any” are patently untrue statements. I don’t really think I have to go into this further; it was just wrong and similar statements throughout that post were similarly wrong. I remember this being pointed out by someone else but I’m not sure who it was.

The second paragraph is funny. If something is NAI, why endhammer? I’d like an explanation on this and wish I’d asked while Neon was still here, but I didn’t start looking at this until after the day ended. Without that explanation I can’t explain this oddity in any other way than saying that the explanation of the vote didn’t actually matter to Neon, which to me is anti-town when you’re endhammering someone.

The third paragraph is what catches my eye. Where did the bomb talk come from? Why did this even make it into Neon’s brain? Snowy did not reveal that he had the bomb for another 19 hours. There was no real context or conversation about the bomb around the time this got posted. Additionally, what changed from this post, in the ballpark of 24 hours prior…

I probably would have Deathbombed Sabi's nametag onto a mafia member, or onto Snowy if mafia are under little suspicion. Shooting Dargo seems like a PR read which would make me think someone like Vecna or ghug who is good at spotting PRs could be scum.

Does scum have any reason to assume that Sabi wasn't just shitposting about their tag?

…to this case on snowy that made Neon believe that a) Besharam actually did have the bomb and wasn’t shitposting, and b) snowy now has it?

Again, something I wish I’d asked Neon. But since I can’t do that my mind turns to a few possibilities: a) snowy has the bomb and was truthful in his claim, and Neon is very prescient and just happened to think of a way that that could have happened, or b) snowy has the bomb and was truthful in his claim, and Neon was in the mafia chat when it happened and knew that snowy would end up with the bomb, or option c) snowy lied and Neon’s bomb talk is either total coincidence. I don’t think it’s even worth bringing up the possibility that snowy lied and Neon knew he lied, but I guess it technically could have happened.

Given the rest of Neon’s explanation is nonsensical bullshit I think that option a) is not likely. I’d expect that to be the bulk of Neon’s case if she were thinking so in depth about this vote. I don’t think snowy lied about the bomb - why would he? - so option c) seems unlikely as well. Option b) is all that is left.

tl;dr Neon’s slot is scum and I intend to vote Neon if I’m alive in a few minutes

[President Eden]

I was gonna make a big EON post, but I realized I have like, nothing helpful to say.

Also I’ve written a ton this game and we’ve seen how that’s gone lol.

Kill Chaqa probably

[bo_sox48]

I guess I intend to vote HB, not Neon. You get the idea

[President Eden]

or do what bo said, that was pretty good

[Vecna]

even though i doubt ill end up dying tonight, my peek during the day came back vanilla

[ghug]

Yeah that's actually pretty sketch, especially given that snowy pretty indisputably did a bunch of solving after Neon's vote, which should be enough to overturn the scumread if not considering Byz's merits but instead busy made her double down.

It doesn't feel like town progression, it seems like frustration that your miskil target has made themselves look good when you just want to kill them and be done with it.

if i die kill kgray

[Vecna]

john mcclaine in case it matters

[Jamiet99uk]

For a number of years I have been familiar with the observation that the quality of programmers is a decreasing function of the density of go to statements in the programs they produce. More recently I discovered why the use of the go to statement has such disastrous effects, and I became convinced that the go to statement should be abolished from all "higher level" programming languages (i.e. everything except, perhaps, plain machine code). At that time I did not attach too much importance to this discovery; I now submit my considerations for publication because in very recent discussions in which the subject turned up, I have been urged to do so.

My first remark is that, although the programmer's activity ends when he has constructed a correct program, the process taking place under control of his program is the true subject matter of his activity, for it is this process that has to accomplish the desired effect; it is this process that in its dynamic behaviour has to satisfy the desired specifications. Yet, once the program has been made, the "making' of the corresponding process is delegated to the machine.

My second remark is that our intellectual powers are rather geared to master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes evolving in time are relatively poorly developed. For that reason we should do (as wise programmers aware of our limitations) our utmost to shorten the conceptual gap between the static program and the dynamic process, to make the correspondence between the program (spread out in text space) and the process (spread out in time) as trivial as possible. I am the cop. I'm posting this now because I think it's quite likely that I will be killed. On N1 I ordered a scan on Princess Neon. However, due to the Bus Driver, I instead scanned BehesharamSabi, who scanned as Innocent. I can therefore confirm as fact that the Bus Driver switched Sabi and Neon on N1. This is important because Snowy has claimed to have obtained the Deathbomb nametag. This makes it incredibly likely, in my view, that Snowy is the BUS DRIVER.

Let us now consider how we can characterize the progress of a process. (You may think about this question in a very concrete manner: suppose that a process, considered as a time succession of actions, is stopped after an arbitrary action, what data do we have to fix in order that we can redo the process until the very same point?) If the program text is a pure concatenation of, say, assignment statements (for the purpose of this discussion regarded as the descriptions of single actions) it is sufficient to point in the program text to a point between two successive action descriptions. (In the absence of go to statements I can permit myself the syntactic ambiguity in the last three words of the previous sentence: if we parse them as "successive (action descriptions)" we mean successive in text space; if we parse as "(successive action) descriptions" we mean successive in time.) Let us call such a pointer to a suitable place in the text a "textual index."

When we include conditional clauses (if B then A), alternative clauses (if B then A1 else A2), choice clauses as introduced by C. A. R. Hoare (case(i) of (A1, A2,···, An)),or conditional expressions as introduced by J. McCarthy (B1 -> E1, B2 -> E2, ···, Bn -> En), the fact remains that the progress of the process remains characterized by a single textual index.

As soon as we include in our language procedures we must admit that a single textual index is no longer sufficient. In the case that a textual index points to the interior of a procedure body the dynamic progress is only characterized when we also give to which call of the procedure we refer. With the inclusion of procedures we can characterize the progress of the process via a sequence of textual indices, the length of this sequence being equal to the dynamic depth of procedure calling.

Let us now consider repetition clauses (like, while B repeat A or repeat A until B). Logically speaking, such clauses are now superfluous, because we can express repetition with the aid of recursive procedures. For reasons of realism I don't wish to exclude them: on the one hand, repetition clauses can be implemented quite comfortably with present day finite equipment; on the other hand, the reasoning pattern known as "induction" makes us well equipped to retain our intellectual grasp on the processes generated by repetition clauses. With the inclusion of the repetition clauses textual indices are no longer sufficient to describe the dynamic progress of the process. With each entry into a repetition clause, however, we can associate a so-called "dynamic index," inexorably counting the ordinal number of the corresponding current repetition. As repetition clauses (just as procedure calls) may be applied nestedly, we find that now the progress of the process can always be uniquely characterized by a (mixed) sequence of textual and/or dynamic indices.

The main point is that the values of these indices are outside programmer's control; they are generated (either by the write-up of his program or by the dynamic evolution of the process) whether he wishes or not. They provide independent coordinates in which to describe the progress of the process.

Why do we need such independent coordinates? The reason is - and this seems to be inherent to sequential processes - that we can interpret the value of a variable only with respect to the progress of the process. If we wish to count the number, n say, of people in an initially empty room, we can achieve this by increasing n by one whenever we see someone entering the room. In the in-between moment that we have observed someone entering the room but have not yet performed the subsequent increase of n, its value equals the number of people in the room minus one!

The unbridled use of the go to statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress. Usually, people take into account as well the values of some well chosen variables, but this is out of the question because it is relative to the progress that the meaning of these values is to be understood! With the go to statement one can, of course, still describe the progress uniquely by a counter counting the number of actions performed since program start (viz. a kind of normalized clock). The difficulty is that such a coordinate, although unique, is utterly unhelpful. In such a coordinate system it becomes an extremely complicated affair to define all those points of progress where, say, n equals the number of persons in the room minus one!

The go to statement as it stands is just too primitive; it is too much an invitation to make a mess of one's program. One can regard and appreciate the clauses considered as bridling its use. I do not claim that the clauses mentioned are exhaustive in the sense that they will satisfy all needs, but whatever clauses are suggested (e.g. abortion clauses) they should satisfy the requirement that a programmer independent coordinate system can be maintained to describe the process in a helpful and manageable way.

It is hard to end this with a fair acknowledgment. Am I to judge by whom my thinking has been influenced? It is fairly obvious that I am not uninfluenced by Peter Landin and Christopher Strachey. Finally I should like to record (as I remember it quite distinctly) how Heinz Zemanek at the pre-ALGOL meeting in early 1959 in Copenhagen quite explicitly expressed his doubts whether the go to statement should be treated on equal syntactic footing with the assignment statement. To a modest extent I blame myself for not having then drawn the consequences of his remark
Here is what would have happened with the Name Tags on N1, I believe: At start of night Bus Driver has TAG1, Neon has TAG2, Sabi has TAG3, Dargorygel has TAG4 and the Cop (me) has TAG5. The Mafia Night Killer has TAG6.

I think that Bus Driver and Florist would both target Sabi hoping to obtain the Deathbomb.
Therefore: Bus Driver gives TAG1 to Neon, Bus Driver forces Neon to give TAG2 to Sabi, Bus Driver forces Sabi to give TAG3 to Bus Driver.
Dargorygel now arrives and swaps tags with Neon (and gives her some flowers). Neon now has TAG4 and Dargorygel has TAG1. Then the Cop (me) arrives, targeting Neon but redirected to Sabi, and gives TAG5 to Sabi, and takes TAG2. Then the Mafia kills Dargorygel and takes TAG1, the Bus Driver's original Tag.

So at the end of N1 / start of D2:

Dargorygel dies holding TAG6, placed on his corpse by the Night Killer.
Sabi was holding TAG5, ALONZO HARRIS, the VANILLA TOWN (originally the Cop's tag).
Neon/Hamilton had TAG4 (which started on Dargorygel).
The Bus Driver was in possession of TAG3 (which Sabi claimed was the Deathbomb). Snowy claimed this tag D2 and is therefore the Bus Driver.
The Cop had TAG 2 (originally Neon's tag - I did not peek at it. The location of this tag now will depend on N2 events)
The Mafia Night Killer had TAG 1 (originally the Bus Driver's tag).
So I got whatever tag Neon started with, but I took it from Sabi.
The remark about the undesirability of the go to statement is far from new. I remember having read the explicit recommendation to restrict the use of the go to statement to alarm exits, but I have not been able to trace it; presumably, it has been made by C. A. R. Hoare. In [1, Sec. 3.2.1.] Wirth and Hoare together make a remark in the same direction in motivating the case construction: "Like the conditional, it mirrors the dynamic structure of a program more clearly than go to statements and switches, and it eliminates the need for introducing a large number of labels in the program."
Tonight I am scanning ghug.
In [2] Guiseppe Jacopini seems to have proved the (logical) superfluousness of the go to statement. The exercise to translate an arbitrary flow diagram more or less mechanically into a jump-less one, however, is not to be recommended. Then the resulting flow diagram cannot be expected to be more transparent than the original one.

[DemonRHK]

NIGHT HAS ENDED PLEASE HOLD

[Jamiet99uk]

If I die, read the small print.

[DemonRHK]

Night had fallen on the station. The remaining officers continued to hunt for clues, as well as ready areas to bunk down for the night.

One wild eyed detective hummed to hiumself as he laid out blankets on the floor at the top of the stairwell. It was the highest point in the building, and he'd be able to hear anyone coming up below him. He finished with a pillow and nodded at his stoic, yet comfortable accomidations. Returning to humming, he walked out onto the balcony for a smoke, looking out over the lights moving to and fro amoung the city. As he took a long drag a car alarm went off below, breaking the low white noise generated by the lights.

This was all as planned, as a figure slowly crept up and pushed the man over the railing. He scarce had time to scream as his head impacted the hood of the car below, silencing both the alarm and the man's cries.

PYXXY has DIED! They were MARTIN RIGGS, the VANILLA TOWN!

-----

GM NOTE

Due to irreconcilable differences, SNOWY801 was given and accepted the option to VACATE their slot, as a substitute has not been able to be contacted as of this time.

The VACANT slot may still be voted for by voting for SNOWY801. The slot will be counted as if it had voted for a No Kill. If the slot remains VACANT into the Night phase, and IF it has any night actions to take, an intelligent randomization will be applied for it's actions.

This is my decision as GM on this matter.

If there are pressing questions or concerns on the matter, you may PM me, otherwise I ask to hold that discussion for postgame.

As of this time, any observers reading the thread are encouraged to PM if interesting in subbing into the game.

-----

48ish hours remain in Day 3.

YOU MAY POST

[ghug]

Lmfao they didn't kill Jamie?

[bo_sox48]

Jamie's post makes it even clearer that Neon's slot is mafia, so I do not intend to change this.

##VOTE Hamilton Brian

[Rumi Tobari]

PYXXY has DIED! They were MARTIN RIGGS, the VANILLA TOWN!

Why Pyx?

Lmfao they didn't kill Jamie?

Not going to lie, I was kind of expecting Jamie too, I'm pretty glad it wasn't Jamie though.

[bo_sox48]

Jamie's post makes it even clearer that Neon's slot is mafia, so I do not intend to change this.

##VOTE Hamilton Brian

Well actually I just reread the bus driver mechanics and it really doesn't... but I believe it anyway so I do not intend to change this.

[ghug]

##CALLGM the standard when we don't have a sub has always been to modkill. I understand taking the time to look for one but you can't just leave him alive and act for him indefinitely.

[bo_sox48]

##CALL GM how long can a spot remain vacant before it is modkilled?

[bo_sox48]

ghug is in my brain and I doubt he likes it there

[ghug]

ghug is in my brain and I doubt he likes it there

Send help