MAFIA 92 - The return of the Witchfinder General [GAME THREAD]

[Red Neurax]

Expanding - I just feel like eliminating people who are prone to not agree with a game consensus is actually a good approach to D1.

why eliminate those who do not conform to the general idea. uniformity is not good at this stage

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

I am one of: Richard Marshall, Oliver Cromwell, John Lowes, Sara Lowes, or a vanilla townsperson.

This is for the town lie detector

We should all say this

If it comes up as a lie to them then they know we are mafia or 3p

If it comes up as truth we are town

Ezpz

Everyone should say this

There is not necessarily a lie detector and they can be tampered with. And I haven't fully grokked the setup so I won't say this in case this outs me as a lazy dummy. But maybe Will is correct.

Yes, but it still helps town

The lie detector, if there is one, can use their discretion

[worcej]

Expanding - I just feel like eliminating people who are prone to not agree with a game consensus is actually a good approach to D1.

Interesting take. I feel like their insight may be valuable though, regardless of cooperation. Better to have more eyes and views than a large group of sheep all focusing on the same (possibly misleading/incorrect) thing.

You're assumption that being able to come to a consensus as being "a large group of sheep" is an interesting extreme...

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

I will be shielding miminena until D3

Didn't you shield Red Neurax last time and he was scum? This is a bad policy.

yes and no

I won’t vote players on their first game as a ‘you deserve a few days to get the whole experience’ type of policy

And not I did not shield Neurax the game he was scum, I believe I shielded him on the day before

[worcej]

Expanding - I just feel like eliminating people who are prone to not agree with a game consensus is actually a good approach to D1.

why eliminate those who do not conform to the general idea. uniformity is not good at this stage

It's the liability of these actions later in the game that I am highlighting as a more useful move to make for kills on D1 versus our standard random kill on D1 that we may get lucky on or not.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

There is already a few things that *could* be said. Although it would mostly be a commentary about overly excited children. I'll spare you all that for the moment. Beyond that, my baseline observations so far:
-Initial votes to 'test' the vote bot is silly. The bot has worked for years. Giving a reason for that kind of vote is already suspect.
-Statements about a lack of 'solving skills' is, well, it's something. Setting low expectations after how many games now?
-And no at this point I have no reason to believe any of you or anything I see. Data and analysis will ferret out motivation.
-Discussions about possible roles is a page waste -but you all know this. Discuss if you must, but it doesn't add much. It just gives the low-hanging fruit something to clutch onto.
-Everyone knows D1 is a crap show.
-Bad actors will reveal themselves in time with how they try to manipulate the flow.

I deliberately didn't tag anyone to test reading comprehension skills which I know is really lacking with the morons and low IQ nitwits who play on this forum.

#Make Web Dip Mafia Great Again

Nonald Drump what are your day 1 policies

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

I will make good on my pledge to be less frustrating; as this was an issue in the past. Therefore im going to just focus most of my energy on asking people why they feel certain ways and jump to basically no conclusions at all. So I expect ill just get eliminated for not being aggressive.

I will be doing the same

[kingofthepirates]

You're assumption that being able to come to a consensus as being "a large group of sheep" is an interesting extreme...

a bit of hyperbole, true, and also sheep here isn't in the sense of "follow one person, often without much reason to", more so "we all think the same"

[worcej]

I tend to feel a town consensus is most often aligned towards shared bad direction. Especially early game the consensus tends to just be wrong for the sake of its own petulance. Individuals who pride themselves as game solvers tend to earn their voice as time rolls on which usually helps replace the bad mob mentality with one of confidence.

So killing within a pool of players who will eventually be confident seems worse than just letting the mob kill someone random.

My list of players would not probably include ghug as I think he is better at showing independent reasons why he is town in spite of his reads usually being wrong / reversed.

For example ghug will on occasion have a scum in his top tier town and have many weak and bad town among his desired kill choices. He gets killed by mafia teams who think he could be a PR mostly - not mafia teams scared of his abilities.

When he is mafia; you basically need him to die early or he will just win.

I disagree with much of this assessment because I feel that player confidence causes players to blind themselves to other reads and opinions, which often has crippled town games when mechanics don't play a dominate role.

I think damo is the best person to die early of the group because of his inability to align and several examples of seizing any opportunity to force his own opinion/stance via mechanics/votes over working with his team.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

I disagree with killing someone just cuz its interesting and different

Us LHF slots need to die somehow

I am a firm believe in voting based on merit on individual games. Just because someone is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in one game does not mean they will be the same in another

Hence we should vote ghug vecna or damo if and only if they are scummy

[worcej]

You're assumption that being able to come to a consensus as being "a large group of sheep" is an interesting extreme...

a bit of hyperbole, true, and also sheep here isn't in the sense of "follow one person, often without much reason to", more so "we all think the same"

Can you explain why thinking the same is inherently bad when it comes to the game of mafia?

[worcej]

I disagree with killing someone just cuz its interesting and different

Us LHF slots need to die somehow

I am a firm believe in voting based on merit on individual games. Just because someone is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in one game does not mean they will be the same in another

Hence we should vote ghug vecna or damo if and only if they are scummy

Our communities town game performances dictate something needs to change.

[brainbomb]

I will be shielding miminena until D3

Didn't you shield Red Neurax last time and he was scum? This is a bad policy.

yes and no

I won’t vote players on their first game as a ‘you deserve a few days to get the whole experience’ type of policy

And not I did not shield Neurax the game he was scum, I believe I shielded him on the day before

Why do you shield new players? This is a strategy and what does this do?

[kingofthepirates]

It's the liability of these actions later in the game that I am highlighting as a more useful move to make for kills on D1 versus our standard random kill on D1 that we may get lucky on or not.

true, but day 1 seems a bit harsh (day 2/3/4, maybe, get some of their reads and views out in the open, give them some time to analyze and stuff,etc.)... I also think that day 1 is the only day we actually have a 'choice' in kills (in all subsequent days, we play off reactions to death, views that can get people killed, etc.) and everything is a blank slate (maf doesn't chat/plan/coordinate, no investigative role info, etc.), and we shouldn't just knock someone with basically a proven track record (by your definition of "good").

[worcej]

I find "kill the scummy player" results in making very uninformed votes on D1 and just leads to a random kill within 5 minutes of phase change.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

I disagree with killing someone just cuz its interesting and different

Us LHF slots need to die somehow

I am a firm believe in voting based on merit on individual games. Just because someone is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in one game does not mean they will be the same in another

Hence we should vote ghug vecna or damo if and only if they are scummy

Our communities town game performances dictate something needs to change.

I don’t see how voting someone not based on scuminess and rather based on not being consensus will change that

The thing that needs to change is how we solve and how we townread/scumread people

@brain
I shield new players so they can play the game. Just a common courtesy. Its NAI for me

[worcej]

It's the liability of these actions later in the game that I am highlighting as a more useful move to make for kills on D1 versus our standard random kill on D1 that we may get lucky on or not.

true, but day 1 seems a bit harsh (day 2/3/4, maybe, get some of their reads and views out in the open, give them some time to analyze and stuff,etc.)... I also think that day 1 is the only day we actually have a 'choice' in kills (in all subsequent days, we play off reactions to death, views that can get people killed, etc.) and everything is a blank slate (maf doesn't chat/plan/coordinate, no investigative role info, etc.), and we shouldn't just knock someone with basically a proven track record (by your definition of "good").

Interesting you feel like we have a choice with D1 kills because, to me, the kill is usually decided at the last second and, due to this, I feel we have no choice in the kill. People make random no-tie votes and don't have strong opinions for the death.

[brainbomb]

I cant speak for anyone but myself - I dont sign up for these games to
Play with any one specific player. So I dont target specific players as people
Id like to have around longer than others. Nor do I have specific people I find more enjoyable to go after.

I used to go ape shit on certain players and it was all just ego driven.

[kingofthepirates]

Can you explain why thinking the same is inherently bad when it comes to the game of mafia?

depends on the case. I think early game we really should value a variety of reads and different types of analysis. late game, when we get into like lylo territory or smth then yes, consensus is very important. but early game (when we still have a sizeable population that can vote together safely), we should use the experience of these players to our advantage as town. They probably have a higher chance to notice something others gloss over, or notice underlying connections, etc.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

I cant speak for anyone but myself - I dont sign up for these games to
Play with any one specific player. So I dont target specific players as people
Id like to have around longer than others. Nor do I have specific people I find more enjoyable to go after.

I used to go ape shit on certain players and it was all just ego driven.

I agree with the signup bit; my shield is only for a players first game

Whats your read on worcej regarding this plan of his?