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

[worcej]

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.

Shit, it doesn't matter what phase, town is typically always wrong about something.

[worcej]

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.

FWIW, Bunny's part in this discussion is NAI - he's generally helpful as any alignment, especially with newer players.

[BunnyGo]

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?

1: Well...you're Australian (I presume from the name and times you're working). So in your shoes, I'd be upset that 9now and 7plus stopped streaming cricket for free (I'm upset about it in my shoes too). But as for believing Bunny? What have I said that's not believable recently?

2: WIFOM is real, and iocane powder comes from Australia. So certainly you cannot trust anything.

3: Yes...I'm a mathematician. Or am I...

[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!

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)?

This is a very good question worcej. 46 chips on you now!

Currently, unveiling you as Mafia gives us irrefutable Town-confirmation on 2 other players.

There are 4 scenarios that would make me shift:

(A) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Mafia gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on 3 players, I switch.

(B) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Town gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on 3 players, I switch.

(C) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Either gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on at least 1 player, I switch.

(D) If you can build me a logical case that is stronger than "gut feel armchair psychology" for someone being Mafia, I switch.

If we are going with "gut feel armchair psychology", I prefer my own that also comes with potential bonus info upon unveilng.

[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.

FWIW, Bunny's part in this discussion is NAI - he's generally helpful as any alignment, especially with newer players.

Except the game I apologized to kgray for. I think I even apologized both privately and publicly.

[KoalaAttack]

2: WIFOM is real, and iocane powder comes from Australia. So certainly you cannot trust anything.

I googled WIFOM – interesting concept.

The fun bit is we aren't even playing the same game!

I don't know what's the Mafia equivalent, but it's like comparing the game theories of Prisoner's Dilemma vs Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. I am playing a one-off game new to me, for now. Y'all are in a series. A marathon indeed.

[BunnyGo]

2: WIFOM is real, and iocane powder comes from Australia. So certainly you cannot trust anything.

I googled WIFOM – interesting concept.

The fun bit is we aren't even playing the same game!

I don't know what's the Mafia equivalent, but it's like comparing the game theories of Prisoner's Dilemma vs Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. I am playing a one-off game new to me, for now. Y'all are in a series. A marathon indeed.

Sure, but you can assess some things. So for example, you never asked why I suspect you're town; especially since you're the new guy and from that perspective it's a 1st iteration one-off game for all of us when you're concerned.

Also, you can look for slips, signs that somebody doesn't know something they should if they were town (or scum). Or does know something they shouldn't.

[KoalaAttack]

2: WIFOM is real, and iocane powder comes from Australia. So certainly you cannot trust anything.

I googled WIFOM – interesting concept.

The fun bit is we aren't even playing the same game!

I don't know what's the Mafia equivalent, but it's like comparing the game theories of Prisoner's Dilemma vs Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. I am playing a one-off game new to me, for now. Y'all are in a series. A marathon indeed.

Sure, but you can assess some things. So for example, you never asked why I suspect you're town; especially since you're the new guy and from that perspective it's a 1st iteration one-off game for all of us when you're concerned.

Also, you can look for slips, signs that somebody doesn't know something they should if they were town (or scum). Or does know something they shouldn't.

That makes total sense. Such a slip, if obvious, would constitute the Scenario (D) form my earlier answer to worcej – and I would totally be swayed by that. Scenario D is the best scenario!!

Why would I need your rationale why I'm Town when everyone has already said that anyway (and I know it's true, which is unverifiable for you) – and on top of that, I already was going to self-sacrifice before folks explained why that was a bad idea?

Oh, you mean to look for potential slips in your reasoning? Sure, let's hear it then :)

[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)?

This is a very good question worcej. 46 chips on you now!

Currently, unveiling you as Mafia gives us irrefutable Town-confirmation on 2 other players.

There are 4 scenarios that would make me shift:

(A) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Mafia gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on 3 players, I switch.

(B) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Town gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on 3 players, I switch.

(C) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Either gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on at least 1 player, I switch.

(D) If you can build me a logical case that is stronger than "gut feel armchair psychology" for someone being Mafia, I switch.

If we are going with "gut feel armchair psychology", I prefer my own that also comes with potential bonus info upon unveilng.

I don't think there is a single thing I can do that will achieve (A), (B), or (C) because there isn't a thing that anyone can do to give you irrefutable proof on anyone's alignment.

The only irrefutable proof you could experience in this game is a GM reveal via an oracle (not in this game) or the results of a flip - everything else is subject to you having to believe what someone is telling you and then see if your belief is validated.

Example: A player claims cop and claims a guilty scan. You have to process that information accordingly that you (1) believe their claim as a cop and (2) that they do indeed have a guilty scan.

It's the same as right now: I claimed doctor. So you've accomplished (1) by not believing me, and that's unfortunate for town but is what it is, and are set on killing me because you don't believe it.

(D) is probably not going to happen from me anyways simply due to lack of information at this point. I've presented my reasons for my 3 scum reads and they are heavily dependent on meta and prior behaviors from the players, so you're not going to believe that anyways. And again, there is no irrefutable proof I can provide that they are scum or not.

[worcej]

2: WIFOM is real, and iocane powder comes from Australia. So certainly you cannot trust anything.

I googled WIFOM – interesting concept.

The fun bit is we aren't even playing the same game!

I don't know what's the Mafia equivalent, but it's like comparing the game theories of Prisoner's Dilemma vs Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. I am playing a one-off game new to me, for now. Y'all are in a series. A marathon indeed.

WIFOM is common and the situation with me is an example of it.

[BunnyGo]

I think there's a townslip in your long long long long long post that I finally made myself read tonight while waiting for my daughter to go to sleep and I was looking for any reference to why scum killed Brian.

And while I don't know you well enough to assess if you're gutsy enough to fake a self-sacrifice play (I know some players might be), I doubt you'd fake this slip in a giant post.

[KoalaAttack]

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)?

This is a very good question worcej. 46 chips on you now!

Currently, unveiling you as Mafia gives us irrefutable Town-confirmation on 2 other players.

There are 4 scenarios that would make me shift:

(A) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Mafia gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on 3 players, I switch.

(B) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Town gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on 3 players, I switch.

(C) If you can build me a logical conjunction that will present someone unveiling whom as Either gives us irrefutable alignment confirmation on at least 1 player, I switch.

(D) If you can build me a logical case that is stronger than "gut feel armchair psychology" for someone being Mafia, I switch.

If we are going with "gut feel armchair psychology", I prefer my own that also comes with potential bonus info upon unveilng.

I don't think there is a single thing I can do that will achieve (A), (B), or (C) because there isn't a thing that anyone can do to give you irrefutable proof on anyone's alignment.

The only irrefutable proof you could experience in this game is a GM reveal via an oracle (not in this game) or the results of a flip - everything else is subject to you having to believe what someone is telling you and then see if your belief is validated.

Example: A player claims cop and claims a guilty scan. You have to process that information accordingly that you (1) believe their claim as a cop and (2) that they do indeed have a guilty scan.

It's the same as right now: I claimed doctor. So you've accomplished (1) by not believing me, and that's unfortunate for town but is what it is, and are set on killing me because you don't believe it.

(D) is probably not going to happen from me anyways simply due to lack of information at this point. I've presented my reasons for my 3 scum reads and they are heavily dependent on meta and prior behaviors from the players, so you're not going to believe that anyways. And again, there is no irrefutable proof I can provide that they are scum or not.

Let's not play word definitions. Fine, I apologize for using the too-strong a term "irrefutable" – the 99% confidence that yavuzovic used in his post is good enough, how's that?

[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

This is the post I'm referring to. Equivalent level of logical conjunction is good enough for me.

[ghug]

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

Bozo, do you think this survey is up to your usual standard?

[worcej]

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

This is the post I'm referring to. Equivalent level of logical conjunction is good enough for me.

The key thing yavu ignored (or failed to mention) was lfischl's vote was to save his own ass and create another wagon that was higher than his own (he had 2 votes on him at that time).

Regardless of alignment, almost every player is going to do whatever it takes to keep themselves alive and lfischl's vote for me at the time contained no real reason for it:

I would prefer not damo, but I would do it if that became a leading wagon, for pyxxy I feel like if I vote there scum will jump on it if they aren't there already, so I'm going to ##vote worcej for now

He simply chose me over pyxxy because he didn't want pyxxy to be a runaway wagon.

[worcej]

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

This is the post I'm referring to. Equivalent level of logical conjunction is good enough for me.

Again, a fault in your logic is you disregard the existence of busing and assume all logical based arguments are being made in good faith.

We could have a situation here where lfischl and myself are both town and yavu is actually scum. What he said via his logic does not stop him from flipping both of us because at no point is his basis "if X is town" - he is starting from a scum position.

So, say we flip me and you see I am the town doctor that I claimed. Yavu's logic is meaningless and would actually warrant you going the next step and flipping lfischl next.

[KoalaAttack]

Again, a fault in your logic is you disregard the existence of busing and assume all logical based arguments are being made in good faith.

We could have a situation here where lfischl and myself are both town and yavu is actually scum. What he said via his logic does not stop him from flipping both of us because at no point is his basis "if X is town" - he is starting from a scum position.

So, say we flip me and you see I am the town doctor that I claimed. Yavu's logic is meaningless and would actually warrant you going the next step and flipping lfischl next.

I am not saying this proves you are Mafia. I am simply saying that unveiling you presents us with strictly more information, relatively speaking, than unveiling someone else. And while you make a good point why the confidence level might not be as high, I still think that's the case unless I get a better alternative.

As for your Doctor claim, so far from the claim itself and responses, I can't build a case stronger than basic "armchair psychology" which is a weaker signal that yavuzovic's post.

[KoalaAttack]

2: WIFOM is real, and iocane powder comes from Australia. So certainly you cannot trust anything.

I googled WIFOM – interesting concept.

The fun bit is we aren't even playing the same game!

I don't know what's the Mafia equivalent, but it's like comparing the game theories of Prisoner's Dilemma vs Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. I am playing a one-off game new to me, for now. Y'all are in a series. A marathon indeed.

Sure, but you can assess some things. So for example, you never asked why I suspect you're town; especially since you're the new guy and from that perspective it's a 1st iteration one-off game for all of us when you're concerned.

Also, you can look for slips, signs that somebody doesn't know something they should if they were town (or scum). Or does know something they shouldn't.

Alright, let's play slips.

Isn't this here:

For example, koala: you’re currently my strongest townread (for reasons unimportant to this story, but I’ll elaborate if asked).

followed by the above, kind of like baiting? And then baiting again when the original fails? Like, you reeeeeally want to share?

Question for the group: What kind of read is this? Is this a mini-slip? In which direction?

[KoalaAttack]

Again, a fault in your logic is you disregard the existence of busing and assume all logical based arguments are being made in good faith.

We could have a situation here where lfischl and myself are both town and yavu is actually scum. What he said via his logic does not stop him from flipping both of us because at no point is his basis "if X is town" - he is starting from a scum position.

So, say we flip me and you see I am the town doctor that I claimed. Yavu's logic is meaningless and would actually warrant you going the next step and flipping lfischl next.

I am not saying this proves you are Mafia. I am simply saying that unveiling you presents us with strictly more information, relatively speaking, than unveiling someone else. And while you make a good point why the confidence level might not be as high, I still think that's the case unless I get a better alternative.

As for your Doctor claim, so far from the claim itself and responses, I can't build a case stronger than basic "armchair psychology" which is a weaker signal that yavuzovic's post.

Look woctej, I was really on the fence whether I should post this, as I do not intend it in a personally-directed way. But please hear me out:

If I am perfectly honest, what counts against you in my head is you threw a tantrum earlier. So, if you are Mafia that computes – of course. And if you are Townie, that means you are a highly emotion-driven townie who would be tougher to reason things through with and more susceptible to Mafia team playing mind-games on. So if we make a mistake and have to kill a townie, I rather keep the emotionless robotic logic people around, simply because I am playing as one.

I hope that made sense.

[KoalaAttack]

*worcej – ahh, worst possible time for a typo