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

[KoalaAttack]

Good. So let's scumhunt. My scumpool is Bunny, yavu, lfischl, rdr [that order but marginal]. What are your thoughts on those four?

Well I think it's worcej, ghug and BunnyGo. So Bunny is intersect. Given that yavu and lfischl are tied up with worcej with that post by yavu, it's quite interesting, and we might arrive at a resolution with the binding vote I want to follow through with.

That leaves rdr. I have no strong feeling on rdr so far and would like to understand your rationale for that one more?

It was the way he did his TM claim but the fact he scum reads Yav and lfischl puts me off a bit.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I still don't feel I have enough data on the way he did his claim. I do agree with the Mafia reads because by deduction of worcej being on my Mafia list, those two are likely to be innocent. But of course it could be all wrong. Won't know until unveiling!

[KoalaAttack]

4 responses in 6 minutes, that must be some kind of a record.

top 3 scum suspects survey:

BunnyGo: yavuzovic, damo, bo_sox
bozo: yavuzovic, bo_sox, rdrivera
Balki: BunnyGo, damo, ghug
lfischl: yavuzovic, Chaqa, BunnyGo/Balki
worcej: Chaqa, bo_sox, bozo
ghug: bo_sox, lfischl, yavuzovic

Damo, Chaqa and lfischl (but can easily replace Chaqa by Bozo) and lfischl by Yav.

You missed mine: worcej, ghug, BunnyGo

[BunnyGo]

Think about it this way – if I am a Townie, why has no Mafia voted for me so far? Clearly because I am one of the the lest-advantageous Townies for them to unveil (for whatever reasons). Maybe I'm new so they don't see me as a threat. Or maybe I said some things that they don't want verified as sincere.

Either way, the binding vote would be more effective. But this feels as good as Plan B as any.

Even if this were true, shouldn't your response to this be to be more useful and involved (a trend I am seeing) rather than volunteer death?

Well, I already got talked out of my self-sacrifice plan. But to answer the question re my original thinking, it depends on "why play the game". I can tell you how I play poker:

- I care that I made the right call.

- Sometimes I make the right call, but the opponent catches an inside straight draw on the river. I am still super happy with myself. It's not about winning the pot, it's about "I made the right decision at the time".

- Other times, I make the wrong call, but now I catch a lucky break. And folks are all like "why are you so upset, you just won a huge pot?" Because I made the wrong call.

Thinking In Bets by Annie Duke is an amazing book on this.



I care whether or not I guess correctly. Now, convincing the rest of the town with the myriad personalities and related unknown variables involved. Yeah, there is some fun psychology involved in that. But also a metric ton of effort. So I give it a fair try, post my reasoning, but I'm not going to keep hammering on it, put unintended. I treat others' reactions to my arguments as more akin to luck in poker.

As a recovering nearly-pro card player myself, I'd like to offer a correction to the end of your theory.

It's ABSOLUTELY true that when evaluating your plays, you shouldn't "result". Judge the play, not the result. It's difficult in many games to assess whether your bad results mean you need to change, but that's the fun.

At the very end though, you say "I treat others' reactions to my arguments as more akin to luck in poker." I strongly suggest you reevaluate that opinion. People's minds are able to be assessed, and manipulated. THIS is the game here.

Do not chalk it up to luck, and do not disregard it because you were unable to plumb the depths. People are not as random as the next card in the deck.

[Balki Bartokomous]

Think about it this way – if I am a Townie, why has no Mafia voted for me so far? Clearly because I am one of the the lest-advantageous Townies for them to unveil (for whatever reasons). Maybe I'm new so they don't see me as a threat. Or maybe I said some things that they don't want verified as sincere.

Either way, the binding vote would be more effective. But this feels as good as Plan B as any.

Even if this were true, shouldn't your response to this be to be more useful and involved (a trend I am seeing) rather than volunteer death?

Well, I already got talked out of my self-sacrifice plan. But to answer the question re my original thinking, it depends on "why play the game". I can tell you how I play poker:

- I care that I made the right call.

- Sometimes I make the right call, but the opponent catches an inside straight draw on the river. I am still super happy with myself. It's not about winning the pot, it's about "I made the right decision at the time".

- Other times, I make the wrong call, but now I catch a lucky break. And folks are all like "why are you so upset, you just won a huge pot?" Because I made the wrong call.

Thinking In Bets by Annie Duke is an amazing book on this.



I care whether or not I guess correctly. Now, convincing the rest of the town with the myriad personalities and related unknown variables involved. Yeah, there is some fun psychology involved in that. But also a metric ton of effort. So I give it a fair try, post my reasoning, but I'm not going to keep hammering on it, put unintended. I treat others' reactions to my arguments as more akin to luck in poker.

This explanation and analogy suggests that you have a lot of confidence that you have the game solved now. Or am I reading you wrong?

How much confidence do you have that you have the game solved? How much confidence do you have that you can identify at least one scum player now if you have two guesses.

[BunnyGo]

For example, koala: you’re currently my strongest townread (for reasons unimportant to this story, but I’ll elaborate if asked). I’m clearly not even in your town pool at all. This is a failing for me as town: town can win just by finding each other and making it easy to be found.

So, I have one other piece of advice: this game is a marathon, not a sprint. The scum team usually seems to be winning for the first 3 days, but town finds each other by the end.

[bozotheclown]

top 3 scum suspects survey:

BunnyGo: yavuzovic, damo, bo_sox
bozo: yavuzovic, bo_sox, rdrivera
Balki: BunnyGo, damo, ghug
lfischl: yavuzovic, Chaqa, BunnyGo/Balki
worcej: Chaqa, bo_sox, bozo
ghug: bo_sox, lfischl, yavuzovic
damo: BunnyGo, lfischl, yavuzovic
rdrivera: damo, Chaqa, lfischl
KoalaAttack: worcej, ghug, BunnyGo

[KoalaAttack]

Even if this were true, shouldn't your response to this be to be more useful and involved (a trend I am seeing) rather than volunteer death?

Well, I already got talked out of my self-sacrifice plan. But to answer the question re my original thinking, it depends on "why play the game". I can tell you how I play poker:

- I care that I made the right call.

- Sometimes I make the right call, but the opponent catches an inside straight draw on the river. I am still super happy with myself. It's not about winning the pot, it's about "I made the right decision at the time".

- Other times, I make the wrong call, but now I catch a lucky break. And folks are all like "why are you so upset, you just won a huge pot?" Because I made the wrong call.

Thinking In Bets by Annie Duke is an amazing book on this.



I care whether or not I guess correctly. Now, convincing the rest of the town with the myriad personalities and related unknown variables involved. Yeah, there is some fun psychology involved in that. But also a metric ton of effort. So I give it a fair try, post my reasoning, but I'm not going to keep hammering on it, put unintended. I treat others' reactions to my arguments as more akin to luck in poker.

As a recovering nearly-pro card player myself, I'd like to offer a correction to the end of your theory.

It's ABSOLUTELY true that when evaluating your plays, you shouldn't "result". Judge the play, not the result. It's difficult in many games to assess whether your bad results mean you need to change, but that's the fun.

At the very end though, you say "I treat others' reactions to my arguments as more akin to luck in poker." I strongly suggest you reevaluate that opinion. People's minds are able to be assessed, and manipulated. THIS is the game here.

Do not chalk it up to luck, and do not disregard it because you were unable to plumb the depths. People are not as random as the next card in the deck.

I agree with you. I think I spoke poorly. I wasn't trying to stay I treat others' reactions as luck from the get-go. I was trying to say that there is a certain amount of effort I am willing to make for my case that's "worth it".

For instance, I still want to follow-through on the binding vote. For reasons I feel I enumerated like 3-4 times. And I haven't moved off this position because so far, no-one else made a compelling enough argument for me to change. But also I am not succeeding in convincing more folks to the cause.

If this was real-life life or death game, I'd spend every waking moment pleading my case. But it's not, and I have already contributed more than the most. So it's like "eh, I gave it a fair go, I'm done". I'll engage again when there is genuinely new info or developments :)

[KoalaAttack]

This explanation and analogy suggests that you have a lot of confidence that you have the game solved now. Or am I reading you wrong?

How much confidence do you have that you have the game solved? How much confidence do you have that you can identify at least one scum player now if you have two guesses.

For the kicks, if we did have the Bookmaker role I suggested, I'd bet my 100 chips as follows:

> worcej: 47
> ghug: 33
> BunnyGo: 10

> save 10 for now

Just watch, I'll probably end up with 0 winningswhen all the dust settles!

[BunnyGo]

Well, I already got talked out of my self-sacrifice plan. But to answer the question re my original thinking, it depends on "why play the game". I can tell you how I play poker:

- I care that I made the right call.

- Sometimes I make the right call, but the opponent catches an inside straight draw on the river. I am still super happy with myself. It's not about winning the pot, it's about "I made the right decision at the time".

- Other times, I make the wrong call, but now I catch a lucky break. And folks are all like "why are you so upset, you just won a huge pot?" Because I made the wrong call.

Thinking In Bets by Annie Duke is an amazing book on this.



I care whether or not I guess correctly. Now, convincing the rest of the town with the myriad personalities and related unknown variables involved. Yeah, there is some fun psychology involved in that. But also a metric ton of effort. So I give it a fair try, post my reasoning, but I'm not going to keep hammering on it, put unintended. I treat others' reactions to my arguments as more akin to luck in poker.

As a recovering nearly-pro card player myself, I'd like to offer a correction to the end of your theory.

It's ABSOLUTELY true that when evaluating your plays, you shouldn't "result". Judge the play, not the result. It's difficult in many games to assess whether your bad results mean you need to change, but that's the fun.

At the very end though, you say "I treat others' reactions to my arguments as more akin to luck in poker." I strongly suggest you reevaluate that opinion. People's minds are able to be assessed, and manipulated. THIS is the game here.

Do not chalk it up to luck, and do not disregard it because you were unable to plumb the depths. People are not as random as the next card in the deck.

I agree with you. I think I spoke poorly. I wasn't trying to stay I treat others' reactions as luck from the get-go. I was trying to say that there is a certain amount of effort I am willing to make for my case that's "worth it".

For instance, I still want to follow-through on the binding vote. For reasons I feel I enumerated like 3-4 times. And I haven't moved off this position because so far, no-one else made a compelling enough argument for me to change. But also I am not succeeding in convincing more folks to the cause.

If this was real-life life or death game, I'd spend every waking moment pleading my case. But it's not, and I have already contributed more than the most. So it's like "eh, I gave it a fair go, I'm done". I'll engage again when there is genuinely new info or developments :)

One of the reasons I wasn't game for the night time vote thingie in the first place: webdip mafia does not follow through on a scheme like this (in any game I can recall).

I think you're missing a bigger point here: engage to assess the player and motivations and psyche.

[BunnyGo]

This explanation and analogy suggests that you have a lot of confidence that you have the game solved now. Or am I reading you wrong?

How much confidence do you have that you have the game solved? How much confidence do you have that you can identify at least one scum player now if you have two guesses.

For the kicks, if we did have the Bookmaker role I suggested, I'd bet my 100 chips as follows:

> worcej: 47
> ghug: 33
> BunnyGo: 10

> save 10 for now

Just watch, I'll probably end up with 0 winningswhen all the dust settles!

We weren't kidding that gambling on this game had to be curtailed from long ago.

[KoalaAttack]

I think you're missing a bigger point here: engage to assess the player and motivations and psyche.

11 chips on BunnyGo

[KoalaAttack]

I think you're missing a bigger point here: engage to assess the player and motivations and psyche.

11 chips on BunnyGo

Look, I just did!

[BunnyGo]

I think you're missing a bigger point here: engage to assess the player and motivations and psyche.

11 chips on BunnyGo

Look, I just did!

LOL.

Well then, does that mean you don't care to engage?

[KoalaAttack]

11 chips on BunnyGo

Look, I just did!

LOL.

Well then, does that mean you don't care to engage?

No, it means that you trying to talk me out of my chosen mode of engagement is Suspicious in my evaluation of your psyche and potential motivations as a maybe-Mafia. Because why do you care so much, unless I'm onto something?

[BunnyGo]

Look, I just did!

LOL.

Well then, does that mean you don't care to engage?

No, it means that you trying to talk me out of my chosen mode of engagement is Suspicious in my evaluation of your psyche and potential motivations as a maybe-Mafia. Because why do you care so much, unless I'm onto something?

I care because I strongly believe you're town. I also strongly suspect you will be alive at the later stage of the game when it becomes important to learn quickly.

I also just like engaging with people, and except for Balki above asking you a question, nobody else is around.

[BunnyGo]

LOL.

Well then, does that mean you don't care to engage?

No, it means that you trying to talk me out of my chosen mode of engagement is Suspicious in my evaluation of your psyche and potential motivations as a maybe-Mafia. Because why do you care so much, unless I'm onto something?

I care because I strongly believe you're town. I also strongly suspect you will be alive at the later stage of the game when it becomes important to learn quickly.

I also just like engaging with people, and except for Balki above asking you a question, nobody else is around.

For example, I'm happy to play AMA: I'll answer any questions to the best of my ability...truthfully at that!

[KoalaAttack]

Right, which is part of it.

If I say "my opinion is settled for today's vote based on the arguments I've read and presented so far" – that's engagement in itself. You can make a whole list of reasons why Townies or Mafias might want to just go with it. You can also make a whole list of reasons why Townies or Mafias might want to prod me into re-engaging for the day after all, and presumably shifting my stance. Right?

All all those posts are new info for the group – just like yours, right?

So, inaction can be a form of action that leads to new info too! Now the group has observed BunnyGo's reaction to KoalaAttacks statement that he is done making his case unless presented with solid logic to shift. Everyone (well, Townies) can draw their conclusions and either strengthen or weaken their current-best-hypothesis involving BunnyGo.

So it would seems like my chosen mode of engagement is working just fine!

[KoalaAttack]

For example, I'm happy to play AMA: I'll answer any questions to the best of my ability...truthfully at that!

Haha, nice! ...

Question 1: would you believe yourself in my shoes?

Question 2: would you believe your response to Question 1 above in my shoes?

Question 3: do you know what recursion is?

[worcej]

Right, which is part of it.

If I say "my opinion is settled for today's vote based on the arguments I've read and presented so far" – that's engagement in itself. You can make a whole list of reasons why Townies or Mafias might want to just go with it. You can also make a whole list of reasons why Townies or Mafias might want to prod me into re-engaging for the day after all, and presumably shifting my stance. Right?

All all those posts are new info for the group – just like yours, right?

So, inaction can be a form of action that leads to new info too! Now the group has observed BunnyGo's reaction to KoalaAttacks statement that he is done making his case unless presented with solid logic to shift. Everyone (well, Townies) can draw their conclusions and either strengthen or weaken their current-best-hypothesis involving BunnyGo.

So it would seems like my chosen mode of engagement is working just fine!

So, let's go a little further and presume I live this phase. Do you approach D3 again with the same logic (that we need to do the blind vote from N1)?

[BunnyGo]

You're correct that everything here has multiple potential audiences.

But you misunderstood that I was asking you to reassess your reads now. In fact I very carefully didn't. I don't even know that you're incorrect on your other two scum-reads!

Town being wrong day 1, and 2 is unhappy, but hardly unusual.