Mafia 46 - Ace Attorney - GAME THREAD

[Squigs44]

Chippe, have you talked about your reads of et and EP yet? That's the most important thing to look at today.

[ChippeRock]

It's an evidence based system. Don't come for me, come for the numbers.

Again, I'm truly failing to understand what your point is here. I legitimately don't understand how it backs up not factoring experience into your reads. Please explain.

Because they're still in unfamiliar territory. The second criterion is the learning curve. If it factors in at all, it'll be there. The first is all about early posts, though, when they're still going to be uncomfortable and treading the same ground as a new player's mindset. I've considered whether prior experience factors in that much before, but the evidence has suggested it's negligible.

So, what your saying is, because he was in unfamiliar territory, he would act like a noob? How does this justify your read on Cruuader?

[ChippeRock]

Chippe, have you talked about your reads of et and EP yet? That's the most important thing to look at today.

I'm thinking about them. All of these detailed reads on both of them are making me go back and forth. I'm hoping ND will post his Espresso read soon...

[TrPrado]

Again, I'm truly failing to understand what your point is here. I legitimately don't understand how it backs up not factoring experience into your reads. Please explain.

Because they're still in unfamiliar territory. The second criterion is the learning curve. If it factors in at all, it'll be there. The first is all about early posts, though, when they're still going to be uncomfortable and treading the same ground as a new player's mindset. I've considered whether prior experience factors in that much before, but the evidence has suggested it's negligible.

So, what your saying is, because he was in unfamiliar territory, he would act like a noob? How does this justify your read on Cruuader?

Because abstaining and lying low are acts of deference, which ticks the scum box of the first criterion, which is generally the much stronger indicator.

[ChippeRock]

Because they're still in unfamiliar territory. The second criterion is the learning curve. If it factors in at all, it'll be there. The first is all about early posts, though, when they're still going to be uncomfortable and treading the same ground as a new player's mindset. I've considered whether prior experience factors in that much before, but the evidence has suggested it's negligible.

So, what your saying is, because he was in unfamiliar territory, he would act like a noob? How does this justify your read on Cruuader?

Because abstaining and lying low are acts of deference, which ticks the scum box of the first criterion, which is generally the much stronger indicator.

Even by your admission (if I'm understanding it right), Cruuader would act like a noob anyways, right? So this doesn't justify the scum read?

[TrPrado]

So, what your saying is, because he was in unfamiliar territory, he would act like a noob? How does this justify your read on Cruuader?

Because abstaining and lying low are acts of deference, which ticks the scum box of the first criterion, which is generally the much stronger indicator.

Even by your admission (if I'm understanding it right), Cruuader would act like a noob anyways, right? So this doesn't justify the scum read?

The method is all about reading new players. New scum defer to experience, new town are too afraid that experienced players could be pulling one over on them so won't defer

[ChippeRock]

Because abstaining and lying low are acts of deference, which ticks the scum box of the first criterion, which is generally the much stronger indicator.

Even by your admission (if I'm understanding it right), Cruuader would act like a noob anyways, right? So this doesn't justify the scum read?

The method is all about reading new players. New scum defer to experience, new town are too afraid that experienced players could be pulling one over on them so won't defer

Method clearly failed with Cruuader though.

[ND]

Espresso:

Page 12:
Begins posting late. Opens with some analysis on a few players (Flav, Squigs) says its a quick skim.

Page 17:
Good insight on chippie at this point in the game. “Quoting without context doesn't help. It comes across like you're trying to look like you're posting a lot and helping, when in truth you aren't posting anything new.”

Page 18:
Talks about correlation between active day QT and active Flav/Secretary. Comments on the Chippie VT thing then votes Chippie. Gives some reason for the vote.

Page 19-21:
Pushes Chippie a bit. Comments on Flav/Balki via Page 3 with Balki’s comment to solve the game in 30 minutes. Talks a bit about his experience in IRL mafia and mafia type games. Talks about how it’s impossible to prove they are a VT basically. Asks some questions to Chippie. Compares Chippie to my play D1. Ugh. Votes Chippie. Tells Tom he will answer questions.

Page 28-29:
Agrees, I think with Durga’s comment that Chippie should be modkilled by doing a +1. Says he is happy to vote Chippie. Goes into the mafia game rules. Answers a question about Tom about his time on forum mafia. Says he is still getting used to the analytical portion of message reading on forum mafia. Says he will post a few reads later tonight. I don't really see these reads ever posted unless he meant N1 and even then it's not much.

Page 35, 41, 56
Gives a town read to Teacon. Clarifies, 41 says Teacon is consistent with M1007. Is that still the case? Was that the case then? Maybe. Talks a bit about Cruaader around 56 specifically via no-lynch. Valid questions to Cruaader but doesn’t really get involved with the ongoing debate.

Page 62-63
Comments about Drugna. A bit on her Werewolf IRL meta I suppose? Talks a bit about policy lynching and how his IRL group’s meta is different than webdip. I would expect a bit more here about upcoming EOD because really all that is here is just some talk about meta. Because next we see him is after EOD on 91.

Page 91:
Comments that he was a bit busy earlier. Which explains his presence not being on around EOD. His stance seems to be evolving a bit on Chippie now. Just due to how Chippie stops the VT thing and starts to change the way he posts. Says he was open to policy lynching as were some others. Asks me a question about TrPrado.

Page 92:
Comments a bit about how he hasn’t been able to contribute much more to Chippie. Comments a bit about his vote on Chippie to Chippie. Gives a town read on teacon and TrPrado. Are these his reads N1? Calls Chip vote on bozo an OMGUS. Says all his top town reads are supporters and how he is going after people questioning him (Espresso, me, Durga) probably more as well frankly This list isn’t long enough. But, I digress.

Page 95-97:
Comments again about busy schedule in a reply to TrPrado. Lots of explaining about his schedule. Well and fine, but he said it once. A bit of a dwelling on this going on here. Says he doesn’t have many reads right now. Says he town reads/leans Teacon/TrPrado. Repetitive. Explains these reads. Compares me to Chippie a bit based on M1007 and this game. Not a total comparison. Ugh. Comments a bit more on Teacon and some playstyle stuff. Says if Teacon doesn’t get inquisitive then we should be asking why. I haven’t seen much from Teacon recently frankly and I’m wondering if this Espresso read is changing? I think his post on 97 is fairly strong though.

Page 102-105
Votes Fox and gives analysis on the NK. Talks a bit more about Chippie and moves him to possible scum. Represents a shift on Chippie. Kind of seen this evolve over night phase. Talks a bit more about NKs, his schedule (again!), etc. Votes Flav.

Page 111-115
Pushes Flav/Suspicion of Fox says they are both scum. Responds to me in a big post about Flav. I like his post on 112. Speculates more about NKs. Talks about Durga/xorxes and the BA.

120-127
A lot of the more recent posts represent a shift from speculation and his earlier scum reads/pushes on Fox and Flav to the current judged lynch we are in. Talks about PR claiming. Begins laying out his big case more recently. There are a lot of posts in these past few pages and a lot of content to go into. It's fairly recent so this point is a skim summary basically. you all should be able to read that and make your own determinations. It's fresh.

Highlights:
Espresso, I think, is trying to game solve. He does spend a good amount of time talking and pushing Chippie D1. Fair play in my opinion. Chippie’s VT proof thing was a lightning rod type play, for what reason, remains unclear. Although he doesn’t completely omit others, Flav is a minor focus and he engages in some back and forth. Critique, I don't really see him follow up on some of these early reads he said he was going to do. But, a minor critique. Despite this, there isn’t much in this chunk of posts that makes me suspicious.

His early night posts 91 after kind of comment why he was absent EOD and he was absent EOD like many others. Still, I think he gets a repetitive about the why he was absent here. During the night he does focus on Flav/Chippie. Once night ends he speculates heavily into the Nks and begins to push Fox/Flav while softening his tone on Chippie. We kind of see this evolve over night. he also makes some townreads/leans on Teacon/TrPrado. Does he still hold them?
Kind of a minor point, but at this point Teacon isn't really playing the same as M1007 in my opinion. Do you think he is Espresso? He makes a good post in reply to me and begins to lay out his case after the Judge forced lynch.

I don’t see much here to really raise alarm bells. I don’t think, based on what I am seeing, that he is scum. I do think he is trying to game solve. I think his posts speak for themselves in that respect. Sure, there are some critiques to his play here, some repetitive stuff, some dwelling on absences. I don't think that outweighs the content though. I don't think that outweighs ET either.

[ND]

I'm taking a break now. My freaking eyes hurt.

[Durga]

I've never seen you type like that. Is that a copy-paste of Teacon's garbage "analysis" ?

[Durga]

Compares Chippie to my play D1. Ugh.

golden

[Balki Bartokomous]

Good evening!

Done with work thing. Lots to read here.

A couple quick things:

ET, don’t claim your role right now please. Can’t unring that bell.

I am seeing a lot of “both seem towny, I guess I’ll vote for one...” I understand the sentiment, but I don’t like that. People should be voting one of three ways: to lynch Espresso, to lynch ET, or to lynch neither. If you think both are Town, vote that way. If a majority wants to No Lynch, we can do that. But we can’t glean much info if 2/3 of the Town says “both seem like Town...guess I’ll pick one for NAI reasons.”

I suggest that if anyone wants to No Lynch, they vote in Blue like this: No Lynch.. We can work on enforcing that choice if the majority of the Town chooses that option.

I have a two hour flight home during which I am going to sink my teeth into this decision. Good job Judge! This definitely gets us focused on two under the radar players, and we know the narrowing was at least an act of Town.

[ND]

I've never seen you type like that. Is that a copy-paste of Teacon's garbage "analysis" ?

wtf? What are you talking about?

[EspressoPatronum]

@Espresso, you say you've played this a lot IRL and so I would have hoped that you would have logically waited until closer to the phase, we almost always have enough people online to change things if you he claims. Doing so now is horribly poor play.

See the "it's too early" criticism.

Also worth noting that all IRL games play out within 20-60 mins. There isn't really any 'waiting until EoD' kind of stuff.

Theres an easy counter though,

If you are clearly going to be lynched then ET doesnt need to claim at all and going by your plan you have just outed (and therefore killed) a PR. I believe that is goal C...

Your plan undermines your own goals.

2 things.
1. Are you countering my response to the "it's too early criticism" or my post in general? I'm not sure how your counter functions against my points on the timing.

I'm not sure my plan translates very well to et not claiming anything. Is this what you're getting at? If it is, I'll think of a more precise response. If not, can you expand on your counter?

2. I'm also not sure you fully understood why I made the post in the first place. I created the post because people wanted to know why I asked et to claim. The post outlines my theory of the game + uses that to show my motivations for asking et to claim. While I definitely argue why I think it was correct, the central point of the post was to show my motivations.

[ChippeRock]

Good evening!

Done with work thing. Lots to read here.

A couple quick things:

ET, don’t claim your role right now please. Can’t unring that bell.

I am seeing a lot of “both seem towny, I guess I’ll vote for one...” I understand the sentiment, but I don’t like that. People should be voting one of three ways: to lynch Espresso, to lynch ET, or to lynch neither. If you think both are Town, vote that way. If a majority wants to No Lynch, we can do that. But we can’t glean much info if 2/3 of the Town says “both seem like Town...guess I’ll pick one for NAI reasons.”

I suggest that if anyone wants to No Lynch, they vote in Blue like this: No Lynch.. We can work on enforcing that choice if the majority of the Town chooses that option.

I have a two hour flight home during which I am going to sink my teeth into this decision. Good job Judge! This definitely gets us focused on two under the radar players, and we know the narrowing was at least an act of Town.

WTF are you talking about? Jamiet clearly stated that you vote for one or the other, there are no "No Lynch" votes. As of right now, you & I are the only ones that can vote for someone other than et & Espresso - which is effectively a "No Lynch" vote.

[EspressoPatronum]

As promised, here’s why I think et should have claimed. This is PART I of 2.

I - The Central Piece of My Argument
My central premise is this: the worst thing the town can do is mislynch a PR (henceforth the “Premise”). If you disagree with the Premise, you will likely disagree with my actions & and none of my arguments will be very persuasive.

So listen. The big overarching problem that makes this whole thing inexcusable in my eyes is that it doesn't protect PR's. If they out then they're as good as dead anyway. No matter how many words you put on screen to defend the concept, that's the only direction that can head.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying a PR dying at night is worse than the town lynching a PR? If not, I don't see why you have a problem with the Premise.

You raise a valid concern about outing PRs, and I touch on it later in my post... but it doesn't really have to do with the Premise.

[Balki Bartokomous]

Good evening!

Done with work thing. Lots to read here.

A couple quick things:

ET, don’t claim your role right now please. Can’t unring that bell.

I am seeing a lot of “both seem towny, I guess I’ll vote for one...” I understand the sentiment, but I don’t like that. People should be voting one of three ways: to lynch Espresso, to lynch ET, or to lynch neither. If you think both are Town, vote that way. If a majority wants to No Lynch, we can do that. But we can’t glean much info if 2/3 of the Town says “both seem like Town...guess I’ll pick one for NAI reasons.”

I suggest that if anyone wants to No Lynch, they vote in Blue like this: No Lynch.. We can work on enforcing that choice if the majority of the Town chooses that option.

I have a two hour flight home during which I am going to sink my teeth into this decision. Good job Judge! This definitely gets us focused on two under the radar players, and we know the narrowing was at least an act of Town.

WTF are you talking about? Jamiet clearly stated that you vote for one or the other, there are no "No Lynch" votes. As of right now, you & I are the only ones that can vote for someone other than et & Espresso - which is effectively a "No Lynch" vote.

Let’s say, for purposes of this explanation, that a majority believes both E’s are Town and vote No Lynch in Blue. In that scenario, we can all agree to tie the vote and No Lynch. If that happens, of course, somebody could choose to thwart the will of the majority and vote to break the tie at the last minute. But, they will be accountable for that action later.

I don’t care what the GM says. We have the option of not lynching either player if we think they are both Town (not saying we do). We can count our own votes and enforce it if we choose. And whether we untimely No Lynch or not, I think that will make the info we get this phase more interesting.

[Nephthys]

@Durga, what are your thoughts here, you've played IRL with Espresso. Is this legit, is it not? I'm curious as to your thoughts.

[Nephthys]

See the "it's too early" criticism.

Also worth noting that all IRL games play out within 20-60 mins. There isn't really any 'waiting until EoD' kind of stuff.

Theres an easy counter though,

If you are clearly going to be lynched then ET doesnt need to claim at all and going by your plan you have just outed (and therefore killed) a PR. I believe that is goal C...

Your plan undermines your own goals.

2 things.
1. Are you countering my response to the "it's too early criticism" or my post in general? I'm not sure how your counter functions against my points on the timing.

I'm not sure my plan translates very well to et not claiming anything. Is this what you're getting at? If it is, I'll think of a more precise response. If not, can you expand on your counter?

2. I'm also not sure you fully understood why I made the post in the first place. I created the post because people wanted to know why I asked et to claim. The post outlines my theory of the game + uses that to show my motivations for asking et to claim. While I definitely argue why I think it was correct, the central point of the post was to show my motivations.

It was against your response.

- You have claimed, ET has not
- If you are about to die at EOD (thereoretically), et does not need to claim regardless

Therefore, asking him to claim on the premise that he would need to sooner or later is fundamentally wrong and while I see your logic I still don't like your action.

[ChippeRock]

Good evening!

Done with work thing. Lots to read here.

A couple quick things:

ET, don’t claim your role right now please. Can’t unring that bell.

I am seeing a lot of “both seem towny, I guess I’ll vote for one...” I understand the sentiment, but I don’t like that. People should be voting one of three ways: to lynch Espresso, to lynch ET, or to lynch neither. If you think both are Town, vote that way. If a majority wants to No Lynch, we can do that. But we can’t glean much info if 2/3 of the Town says “both seem like Town...guess I’ll pick one for NAI reasons.”

I suggest that if anyone wants to No Lynch, they vote in Blue like this: No Lynch.. We can work on enforcing that choice if the majority of the Town chooses that option.

I have a two hour flight home during which I am going to sink my teeth into this decision. Good job Judge! This definitely gets us focused on two under the radar players, and we know the narrowing was at least an act of Town.

WTF are you talking about? Jamiet clearly stated that you vote for one or the other, there are no "No Lynch" votes. As of right now, you & I are the only ones that can vote for someone other than et & Espresso - which is effectively a "No Lynch" vote.

Let’s say, for purposes of this explanation, that a majority believes both E’s are Town and vote No Lynch in Blue. In that scenario, we can all agree to tie the vote and No Lynch. If that happens, of course, somebody could choose to thwart the will of the majority and vote to break the tie at the last minute. But, they will be accountable for that action later.

I don’t care what the GM says. We have the option of not lynching either player if we think they are both Town (not saying we do). We can count our own votes and enforce it if we choose. And whether we untimely No Lynch or not, I think that will make the info we get this phase more interesting.

Sure it will - but trying to tie the vote results in both et & Espresso posting less content to defend their actions, and people's detailed reads/analysis on their game also slows down.

It's incredibly hard to tie the vote, and not too many people will be on board with it. And than there's the matter of MoscowFleet & teacon7 - who it appears we have lost. It's just doomed to fail, and I don't think it'll get its desired result.

Speaking of MF & teacon, ##CALL GM, if MoscowFleet and/or teacon7 don't get their 2 required posts in and/or don't get in a valid vote by the end of the phase, will they be modkilled (assuming no replacements are found)?