Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:08 am
I can't even...I've written several unkind responses. Just no.
https://www.webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://www.webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4477
KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:09 amIs it normal that damo is a pretty active poster on every day so far and made a grand total of zero posts on both previous nights and this one up until this message?
Would you read anything into it?
Damo was just scum in this game, tell me what you think:KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:14 amKoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:09 amIs it normal that damo is a pretty active poster on every day so far and made a grand total of zero posts on both previous nights and this one up until this message?
Would you read anything into it?
D1 - 316 words
N1 - 0
D2 - 1643 words
N2 - 0
D3 - 1775 words
Day participation growing, Night participation flatlined at 0
I'm just looking for patterns, y'all tell me what they mean, haha!
You would need to compare vs a game where Damo was Town for reference. Ideally a couple of each for statistical significance. I was more hoping folks would have a clear pattern from memory, rather than doing a full data science analysis – I confess, I don't think I'm motivated enough for it :)BunnyGo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:18 amDamo was just scum in this game, tell me what you think:KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:14 amKoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:09 amIs it normal that damo is a pretty active poster on every day so far and made a grand total of zero posts on both previous nights and this one up until this message?
Would you read anything into it?
D1 - 316 words
N1 - 0
D2 - 1643 words
N2 - 0
D3 - 1775 words
Day participation growing, Night participation flatlined at 0
I'm just looking for patterns, y'all tell me what they mean, haha!
https://mafia.peterlund.se/e/web/front_page?g=1023
I don’t really know about every game and the weeds of this request, but fairly often night phase is less activity.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:18 amI guess a better question to ask is whether there is a pattern to damo night posting or lack of thereof in previous games?
We should talk about this.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:43 amI still have Balki as a strong Mafia suspect for the last fake group action (in addition to the lfi alternative searching in the last vote I mentioned)
Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:57 amWe should talk about this.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:43 amI still have Balki as a strong Mafia suspect for the last fake group action (in addition to the lfi alternative searching in the last vote I mentioned)
Here is why I pushed the N2 vote idea:
1. Because only Town potentially benefits from predicting the D2 kill. There was no possible scum role that might also benefit. So by moving the vote up to Night 1 instead of Day 2, we had a chance to get Gambler an item without a disadvantage.
2. Because our percentage Town was likely to be slightly higher during N1 than it was on D2 (because Scum were more likely to kill a player than Town during the night). (This only applies if we have a robust vote with full participation)
3. Whether we actually followed the plan or not, it seemed like a useful way to spend our time during the night: forcing people to make reads and vote, and the vote data might wind up being useful.
Once Day 2 began, I had a little bit of interest in following through with the plan — like I may have cast a vote for worcej if I was really undecided about two vote candidates — but there were some reasons not to treat the night vote as decisive:
(1) There was not full buy in from players. Lots of players discredited the idea or did not participate. It didn’t feel like a robust voting process.
(2) I definitely didn’t want to vote END early before everyone had a chance to report potential night information and before worcej had a chance to claim a PR.
Then, of course, worcej did claim a PR, and a third consideration overwhelmed all: worcej made a claim that we were likely to learn more about as the game went on.
So, maybe this is all true, or maybe there is a sinister scum plan for all this. If you think there is a sinister scum plan, you need to consider the scum motivation for what I did and then evaluate whether that explanation is more likely than the one I just gave.
If worcej had turned out to be Scum, then I can think of a pretty convincing Scum motivation. I wanted to have a vote to kill, and then changed my mind after the vote leader was on my Scum teammate. But we now know that worcej is Town. So with that in mind, what is the Scum motivation that makes these actions suspicious?
Note how you went out of your way to spell out the "narrow exception" in case the results of the night actions reveal a wolf. But you didn't do the same caveat for in case the vote-winner claims. Because you didn't think of it ahead of time? I find that unlikely – you seem to be a very analytical thinker about this game.Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:59 amLet’s do a binding vote during this night phase about who we chop tomorrow. Then we end hammer tomorrow the leading vote getter (narrow exception here if results of night actions reveals a wolf).
This way, we ensure that our gambler (if we have one) gets their items, and we vote to kill at a time when a greater majority of the game is Town.
##vote BunnyGo
This phrasing is VERY awkwardlfischl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 2:03 amBeing awfully defensive for a town role, and it's D1 man, live a littleBalki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:57 pmI’m not going to answer any questions about my claim. Don’t visit me unless you’re a Wolf.Hamilton Brian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:50 pm
Yes, I am. I know it's easy to go down a rabbit hole about why someone would claim as either alignment. And maybe it's too early to dig into the reason (But Balki, why did you choose that particular point in the day phase to claim) in which case a kind, "Brian, STFU and look at something else," would suffice.
The psychology of such a move is of interest. What's the motivation as either alignment. I think Rivera offers something closer to a greater truth, but...
I suggest that we focus on alignments.
Thank you – that's helpfulworcej wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:44 amI don’t really know about every game and the weeds of this request, but fairly often night phase is less activity.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:18 amI guess a better question to ask is whether there is a pattern to damo night posting or lack of thereof in previous games?
Yes, that’s right. But I only advocated for the end hammer before the night ended. I did that to try to make the Night vote real. To make people feel like it was going to have weight to it. Without that, none of the vote analysis matters. If people thought the vote would not matter, the vote analysis is meaningless.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:32 amA) Your comment about you "definitely didn't want to vote END early" sounds nice, but if you go to http://mafia.peterlund.se/e/web/msgs?g= ... artokomous and search for the word "hammer" on page, you find that it was explicitly and repeatedly spelled out by you on a half-dozen ocasions.
I can see what you are saying about potential motivation for a scum player to initiate and advocate for a binding vote at night. But you are shading me (I think) for first advocating for a binding vote and then not following it. (Right?) The vote wound up on worcej. He’s town. He claimed PR. What was the scum motivation for me to back out of the binding vote that I called for during the night?KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:32 amB) Re Mafia motivation – correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm Mafia and I get a crystal ball with a preview of how tomorrow's Town votes will go, how everyone feels about everyone else, and the rationale ... while I can use that to inform my move on the Night, isn't that motivation in itself? Maybe the way that vote played out Mafia team didn't need to do anything, because it played right into their hands anyway. But the Mafia team wouldn't have known this back when the so-called binding vote was starting. So I think the motivation is pretty self-evident.
I don’t follow your logic here. Why is it that Scum!Balki doesn’t want to spell out some caveat where the target of a night vote claims a PR?KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:32 amC) The entire thing re worcej and the doctor claim feels like hindsight logic.
Note how you went out of your way to spell out the "narrow exception" in case the results of the night actions reveal a wolf. But you didn't do the same caveat for in case the vote-winner claims. Because you didn't think of it ahead of time? I find that unlikely – you seem to be a very analytical thinker about this game.Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:59 amLet’s do a binding vote during this night phase about who we chop tomorrow. Then we end hammer tomorrow the leading vote getter (narrow exception here if results of night actions reveals a wolf).
This way, we ensure that our gambler (if we have one) gets their items, and we vote to kill at a time when a greater majority of the game is Town.
##vote BunnyGo
That’s true every time we try to vote to chop someone in this setup before we mass claimed. Every time we near the end of a chop, if we’re about to kill a PR, they should claim.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:47 am
And the 4th one – if we assume that claiming stops the binding vote, then it's a super obvious motivation for Mafia to draw our a claim early. Just like it did with worcej & doctor
Writing from my phone. That should say: “it’s just inherent in any mafia game with hidden PRs.”Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:16 amPR claiming on the gallows was not a part of the night vote plan, it’s just I hereby in any mafia game with hidden PRs.
Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:11 amI can see what you are saying about potential motivation for a scum player to initiate and advocate for a binding vote at night. But you are shading me (I think) for first advocating for a binding vote and then not following it. (Right?)
*** not quite - I’m not shading you, you said “let’s talk” so I’m forcing you to talk and make your case in detail for all to see, to either clear your name or slip :)
The vote wound up on worcej. He’s town. He claimed PR. What was the scum motivation for me to back out of the binding vote that I called for during the night?
*** good question, but if you never intended to eat an apple to begin with you don’t need motivation to “change your mind” about eating apples … I think this is the best point you made so far though - curious to get others input
Also, putting that aside, generally: forcing everyone to say who they think is scum and the reasons is TOWN-motivated. It is, in fact, the only way Town wins. So while scum may be able to use information about Towns preferences to inform their strategies, anything that forces everyone to think and share and solve is absolutely pro-Town. No question.
*** actually I do have a question. During the day it makes sense. During the night though I’d like to pose this question to other experienced players
I don’t follow your logic here. Why is it that Scum!Balki doesn’t want to spell out some caveat where the target of a night vote claims a PR?
You are saying I am analytical. Okay, I agree. But your conclusion does not seem to have a rational theory to sort Scum!Balki from Town!Balki.
There is no reason I need to spell out every potential caveat. But a great reason Town!Balki would not spell out that caveat is it practically asks whomever winds up being the leading vote getter to claim a PR (even if they are scum). There is no reason Town!Balki would include that caveat.
I don’t understand at all the point you are trying to make with this question.
*** you said “narrow exception” which I take as the only exception - adding a new exception after the fact is Suspicious
Gotcha - thanksBalki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:26 amWriting from my phone. That should say: “it’s just inherent in any mafia game with hidden PRs.”Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:16 amPR claiming on the gallows was not a part of the night vote plan, it’s just I hereby in any mafia game with hidden PRs.
Im having trouble following this formatting from my phone. Would you please write out your additional questions separately and I’ll answer them?KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:28 amBalki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:11 amI can see what you are saying about potential motivation for a scum player to initiate and advocate for a binding vote at night. But you are shading me (I think) for first advocating for a binding vote and then not following it. (Right?)
*** not quite - I’m not shading you, you said “let’s talk” so I’m forcing you to talk and make your case in detail for all to see, to either clear your name or slip :)
The vote wound up on worcej. He’s town. He claimed PR. What was the scum motivation for me to back out of the binding vote that I called for during the night?
*** good question, but if you never intended to eat an apple to begin with you don’t need motivation to “change your mind” about eating apples … I think this is the best point you made so far though - curious to get others input
Also, putting that aside, generally: forcing everyone to say who they think is scum and the reasons is TOWN-motivated. It is, in fact, the only way Town wins. So while scum may be able to use information about Towns preferences to inform their strategies, anything that forces everyone to think and share and solve is absolutely pro-Town. No question.
*** actually I do have a question. During the day it makes sense. During the night though I’d like to pose this question to other experienced players
I don’t follow your logic here. Why is it that Scum!Balki doesn’t want to spell out some caveat where the target of a night vote claims a PR?
You are saying I am analytical. Okay, I agree. But your conclusion does not seem to have a rational theory to sort Scum!Balki from Town!Balki.
There is no reason I need to spell out every potential caveat. But a great reason Town!Balki would not spell out that caveat is it practically asks whomever winds up being the leading vote getter to claim a PR (even if they are scum). There is no reason Town!Balki would include that caveat.
I don’t understand at all the point you are trying to make with this question.
*** you said “narrow exception” which I take as the only exception - adding a new exception after the fact is Suspicious
Not quite - I’m not shading you, you said “let’s talk” so I’m forcing you to talk and make your case in detail for all to see, to either clear your name or slip :)Balki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:11 amI can see what you are saying about potential motivation for a scum player to initiate and advocate for a binding vote at night. But you are shading me (I think) for first advocating for a binding vote and then not following it. (Right?)
Good question, but if you never intended to eat an apple to begin with you don’t need motivation to “change your mind” about eating apples … I think this is the best point you made so far though - curious to get others inputBalki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:11 amThe vote wound up on worcej. He’s town. He claimed PR. What was the scum motivation for me to back out of the binding vote that I called for during the night?
Actually I do have a question. During the day it makes sense. During the night though I’d like to pose this question to other experienced playersBalki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:11 amAlso, putting that aside, generally: forcing everyone to say who they think is scum and the reasons is TOWN-motivated. It is, in fact, the only way Town wins. So while scum may be able to use information about Towns preferences to inform their strategies, anything that forces everyone to think and share and solve is absolutely pro-Town. No question.
You said “narrow exception” which I take as the only exception - adding a new exception after the fact is SuspiciousBalki Bartokomous wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:11 amI don’t follow your logic here. Why is it that Scum!Balki doesn’t want to spell out some caveat where the target of a night vote claims a PR?
You are saying I am analytical. Okay, I agree. But your conclusion does not seem to have a rational theory to sort Scum!Balki from Town!Balki.
There is no reason I need to spell out every potential caveat. But a great reason Town!Balki would not spell out that caveat is it practically asks whomever winds up being the leading vote getter to claim a PR (even if they are scum). There is no reason Town!Balki would include that caveat.
I don’t understand at all the point you are trying to make with this question.