A Game of Cold-Blooded Murder [Game Over]

[Montmorency]

Remember the first Pirate Ship Mafia game? When the mafia were obliterated by a group of townies killing people using an RNG?

Of course, there is no equivalence between "gut" and RNG.

Remember that game when all the mafia were killed in quick succession using gut instinct? Me neither.

Almost every one. It is exceedingly rare for a player, having less information and fewer resources than the gut, to be correct in second-guessing its conclusions.

In fact, very often a player who 'goes against his gut' has merely ungraciously appropriated the gut's latest up-to-the-minute prognostications.

[Montmorency]

It's an illusion.

So the physicist said to the layman, I employ empirical methods in studying the universe.

The layman said, So you use your senses to observe the world around you?

The physicist said, No, it's an illusion.

[Visor]

Gut instinct is how I play my games. I have a pretty good track record. I trust it over empirical evidence in some situations, because townies/scum can do stupid things.

Doom Project, I nailed BigTin using my ability, and subsequently nailed two other scumbags. D&D3, I nailed Jarrema from one post (granted I can almost read him like the back of my hand), when it comes to most people, I simply use my gut to read them, and more often then not, I am right.

I don't have the time to make a spreadsheet (even if I wanted to), and in a lot of games, it is useless.

Case building is a good idea.

Anyway; Vote: Andres

need to catch up.

[Zack]

Of course, there is no equivalence between "gut" and RNG.



Almost every one. It is exceedingly rare for a player, having less information and fewer resources than the gut, to be correct in second-guessing its conclusions.

In fact, very often a player who 'goes against his gut' has merely ungraciously appropriated the gut's latest up-to-the-minute prognostications.

So the physicist said to the layman, I employ empirical methods in studying the universe.

The layman said, So you use your senses to observe the world around you?

The physicist said, No, it's an illusion.

Is the stand-up routine over now?

[Zack]

I simply use my gut to read them, and more often then not, I am right.

This cannot possibly be true, or else any game in which you were town would end very quickly.

[Visor]

It's an illusion.

@Jarrema

People often repeat/employ certain methods as scum/townie. Monitoring of behaviour (with experience), as well as accounting for the current situation is often one of the best chances of catching scum.

Anyway Zack, what 'empirical' evidence do you have in this game? (as in actions, etc...)

[Visor]

This cannot possibly be true, or else any game in which you were town would end very quickly.

One person does not a lynch make. The game doesn't revolve around my opinions. So no, you are incorrect there.

I could be right every game, but if no-one follows my vote, it doesn't matter.

[Montmorency]

Is the stand-up routine over now?

No joke.

This cannot possibly be true, or else any game in which you were town would end very quickly.

There's a difference between strongly suspecting someone of being scum, and successfully having them lynched on the basis of this suspicion.

[Zack]

@Jarrema

People often repeat/employ certain methods as scum/townie. Monitoring of behaviour (with experience), as well as accounting for the current situation is often one of the best chances of catching scum.

Such as?

I don't think you're understanding the probabilities. In the endgame (when the most scum are caught), simple probability dictates that you're far more likely to start lynching scum. The odds of going the whole game without lynching any mafia are really, really low.

Scum are rarely lynched in the early-mid game, and when they are, it's dumb luck.

Look at the General Hankerchief series. Completely vanilla in every sense of the word. There is NO empirical evidence. The mafia have historically done really well in those games, especially recently.

Anyway Zack, what 'empirical' evidence do you have in this game? (as in actions, etc...)

Did I say I have any?

There's a difference between strongly suspecting someone of being scum, and successfully having them lynched on the basis of this suspicion.

There's also such a thing as confirmation bias, and people tend to remember their successes more than their failures, leading to distorted perceptions of past events. Visorslash's claim that his "gut" has been right the majority of time is basically impossible.

[Visor]

without lynching any mafia are really, really low.

it has happened though. Mafia is not a game of random probabilities though. Most votes are made with reason and justification, which can be twisted to improve odds. Hell look at my recent game, where not one mafia/neutral role was lynched.

Yes, as less people exist, more random probabilites to lynch mafia exist, but the nature of the game and the concept itself warp those odds.

and when they are, it's dumb luck.

most not all.
Did I say I have any?

You complained about case building/behaviour monitoring, and say empirical evidence is better (or at least imply it), in a situation where there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence to use. I mean, this isn't really the right game to be discussing what 'method' is best, when the one you want to use is not feasible. I don't understand your argument in relation to this game. Towards mafia as a whole, I understand yet reject the principle.

Visorslash's claim that his "gut" has been right the majority of time is basically impossible.

You seem to think that I mean 90% etc success rates. I don't. I mean on average, I get a few more right then I do wrong. I'd say it'd be a bit over 50%, that throughout the duration of a game, I will at least suspect strongly (lynching requires others to follow/believe) most mafia members.

However I'm not going to go over this anymore now, as I have to leave. I disagree that spreadsheeting is the best way of catching mafia, it can be easily fooled, as can every other method although, but straight empirical is foolish.

[Montmorency]

There is NO empirical evidence.

There is less empirical evidence. This is the crucial point.

There's also such a thing as confirmation bias, and people tend to remember their successes more than their failures, leading to distorted perceptions of past events.

You are vulnerable to the exact same biases as your gut, yet the gut is both smarter and more intelligent. I'd say, go with the government over Will Smith.

Visorslash's claim that his "gut" has been right the majority of time is basically impossible.

The exact extent to which Visor's specific statement is self-flattery and no more is not pertinent.

[Ferret]

Did I say I have any?

So in the absence of empirical evidence what is there to fall back on but gut feelings and the monitoring of behaviours? A random vote in a game such as this would only be to the hindrance of the town.

[Zack]

You complained about case building/behaviour monitoring, and say empirical evidence is better (or at least imply it), in a situation where there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence to use. I mean, this isn't really the right game to be discussing what 'method' is best, when the one you want to use is not feasible. I don't understand your argument in relation to this game. Towards mafia as a whole, I understand yet reject the principle.

I commented on a ridiculous perpetuation of commonly-held beliefs about the behaviors of mafia, and went on an tangential discussion of the merits of behavioral analysis in a much broader context. I didn't expect people to blow up at it in an absurd "I'm so good at this game!" protest.

So in the absence of empirical evidence what is there to fall back on but gut feelings and the monitoring of behaviours? A random vote in a game such as this would only be to the hindrance of the town.

It would likely be just as effective. Let's say that it's Day Four, there are 20 people alive, and three of them are mafia. You're not going to vote for yourself. That leaves a 3/19 chance in a random vote striking mafia, or ~16%. Hardly any less than the success rate of lynching mafia in the same situation using non-random methods.

[Ferret]

Except that in this game a majority is required for a lynch to occur. If we all vote randomly then a townie will almost certainly be killed due to the involvement of the host/s.

As for the ridiculously held beliefs about mafia, I'd like to point out the lynch of B_Ray in El Barto's game. There is absolutely such a thing as scummy behaviour.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I personally am of the opinion that it is possible to read something into people's behaviour - even if only those you are familiar with and only to a degree. When you have nothing else to go on, it is, however slightly, better than a scattergun approach. That said, I am under no illusions as to just how poor I am at reading people - hence my tendency to rely on the principle - 'what would I do in this situation?'. Unfortunately, that doesn't work particularly well either - just look at my terrible track record...

While I share Elite Ferret's concerns about failing to lynch someone due to divisions, the 24-hour warning should prevent that.

Since Lazy is sticking to his guns, I am inclined to view him less suspiciously than yesterday. Caius represents the easy vote - I am unconvinced. Similarly those following Andres vote on Darth Feather seem to have waiting to see which way to jump, before committing themselves - certainly not incriminating in itself but it does tug at my 'gut'. With the lack of any other information/feeling...

Vote: B_Ray

Tally

Darth Feather - 3: Andres; Zack; BSmith
Andres - 3: Lazy McCrow; Elite Ferret; Visorslash
Caius - 3: Darth Feather; B_Ray; Makrell
Zack - 1: Montmorency
B_Ray - 1: Curio

[Visor]

Apologies for the wank in my above posts, wasn't what I was trying to say.

Basically, I disagree with what you said Zack, that's the gist of it.

Obligatory Zack hasn't been killed night 1 ergo mafia.

[B-Wing]

Since Lazy is sticking to his guns, I am inclined to view him less suspiciously than yesterday. Caius represents the easy vote - I am unconvinced. Similarly those following Andres vote on Darth Feather seem to have waiting to see which way to jump, before committing themselves - certainly not incriminating in itself but it does tug at my 'gut'. With the lack of any other information/feeling...

Vote: B_Ray

I suppose I need to further justify voting for Caius? If you were mafia/scum in this game, wouldn't it be in your favor to keep players who are obviously inactive alive? As opposed to calling for their lynch? Since they present no threat to you, unlike the players who are voting?

Caius is deadweight to the town, but he possesses the same chance of being mafia as anyone else. So there is literally no downside to lynching Caius. If there's a better candidate, we can save Caius for later, but I don't really see one yet. If I had vote for someone else right now, it would be Elite Ferret, but I don't see him as a better choice than Caius.

[Diana Abnoba]

I agree with B_Ray's post above, and it was what I was trying to say the last round, when I voted Caius. We need to get rid of the deadweight in the town in the early rounds, when we can take the hit if he turns out to be townie after all (lots more round to scum hunt). Besides, in this game in particular, when we need a majority to lynch, he will only become a anchor around our necks, when it comes to the end game.

Vote: Caius again.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I suppose I need to further justify voting for Caius? If you were mafia/scum in this game, wouldn't it be in your favor to keep players who are obviously inactive alive? As opposed to calling for their lynch? Since they present no threat to you, unlike the players who are voting?

Caius is deadweight to the town, but he possesses the same chance of being mafia as anyone else. So there is literally no downside to lynching Caius. If there's a better candidate, we can save Caius for later, but I don't really see one yet. If I had vote for someone else right now, it would be Elite Ferret, but I don't see him as a better choice than Caius.

You make a reasonable point regarding him not being a threat to any Mafioso.

On the other hand since he has been inactive for a month, even if he is mafia he is no threat to the town. If his colleague is lynched, he does not reappear and there is no murder - bingo. If his colleague is lynched and he reappears and there is a murder - bingo.

Given the town as a group has received the kick it needs from Chaotix/ATPG already, I doubt there will be a situation in which the voting is not decided by majority. Certainly that isn't imminent. On that basis I respectfully disagree with your assessment: there is literally no downside to keeping Caius alive, at this point in time. As I said, it is still the easy option with which to justify one's townie status.

No, that isn't enough to advocate strongly for your lynch, but it isn't enough to persuade me to unvote at this stage...

[Andres]

I think you can actually tell quite a lot monitoring a player's behaviour, if you've played a few games with them anyway.

But I don't think Andres is much more likely to be scum than anyone else at the moment. The vote is there to pressure him into explaining why he dropped his previous case so readily and not because I think there is a realistic possibility of him being lynched today.

I'm not voting for him because I think it is scummy that he changed his mind, I am voting for him to find out why he changed his mind. There is a chance his explanation may provide clues of his alignment. At the very least, getting him to post more will provide more information for your 'gut' to work with.

I didn't drop my case; I never said that from now on, I no longer think LazyMcCrow is guilty.

But there are other players as well and too much focus on one person, makes it easier for others to fly under the radar.

In this game, players like Darth Feather or Diana Abnoba are dangerous. You hardly notice them, but they are there. All too often is town focusing on the very active ones, usually lynching a few of them and then, at the end of the game, they realize that there are still a bunch of players who haven't gotten any attention at all.

In this game, there's no pressure to lynch somebody within 24 hours. We can spend an entire day analysing Darth Feather and Diana Abnoba and then pile 15 votes on LazyMcCrow.

Unvote; Vote : Zack

[Andres]

You make a reasonable point regarding him not being a threat to any Mafioso.

On the other hand since he has been inactive for a month, even if he is mafia he is no threat to the town. If his colleague is lynched, he does not reappear and there is no murder - bingo. If his colleague is lynched and he reappears and there is a murder - bingo.

Given the town as a group has received the kick it needs from Chaotix/ATPG already, I doubt there will be a situation in which the voting is not decided by majority. Certainly that isn't imminent. On that basis I respectfully disagree with your assessment: there is literally no downside to keeping Caius alive, at this point in time. As I said, it is still the easy option with which to justify one's townie status.

No, that isn't enough to advocate strongly for your lynch, but it isn't enough to persuade me to unvote at this stage...

Why do you always sound so suspicious?

I don't see the point in lynching Caius either.

[Andres]

I agree with B_Ray's post above, and it was what I was trying to say the last round, when I voted Caius. We need to get rid of the deadweight in the town in the early rounds, when we can take the hit if he turns out to be townie after all (lots more round to scum hunt). Besides, in this game in particular, when we need a majority to lynch, he will only become a anchor around our necks, when it comes to the end game.

Vote: Caius again.

Who says he won't get WoG'ed or replaced?

[Darth Feather]

Who says he won't get WoG'ed or replaced?

Because of this

15. That being said, there is no forced minimum activity requirement or publicly known threshold for booting inactive players. That person that seems inactive might be guilty and just laying low. You have been warned.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

14. It is generally a good idea to actively participate in some fashion, such as discussing or voting. Otherwise cruel and unfair things may happen to you at the moderator's sole discretion.

15. That being said, there is no forced minimum activity requirement or publicly known threshold for booting inactive players. That person that seems inactive might be guilty and just laying low. You have been warned.

For the information of all, here are the two relevant 'rules'. They say everything, yet nothing.

WoGs are possible - we just don't know when. ATPG is making sure that he isn't forced to boot an inactive mafioso, but reserving the right to boot an inactive townie should he choose.

[Darth Feather]

Indeed, that rule 14 says he might be WOG'ed, but only if the host feels like it. If he is a townie, he might be WOGged (but only after a considerable time, I suppose). If he is scum, he probably won't.

In the meanwhile he is without voting increasing our lynching treshold => more bandwaggoning => bad

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the absence of one vote is a problem in a situation when we require a minimum of eight votes to lynch someone.

It wouldn't even be a problem if you required a minimum of five votes. If he isn't contributing, he is no threat to the mafia, but more importantly he is not any threat to the town.

To vote for Caius is to give the mafia an easy way out - if he is mafia and not contributing what better way to establish your 'innocence' than by 'bussing' onto a roiling bandwagon, when keeping him around is of no value to you..? If Caius is not mafia, oh well, everyone is 'erring on the side of caution', you lose nothing in terms of how you are regarded...

I admit frankly that were I a cunning mafioso, that is exactly what I would be doing...

[Darth Feather]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the absence of one vote is a problem in a situation when we require a minimum of eight votes to lynch someone.

It wouldn't even be a problem if you required a minimum of five votes. If he isn't contributing, he is no threat to the mafia, but more importantly he is not any threat to the town.

To vote for Caius is to give the mafia an easy way out - if he is mafia and not contributing what better way to establish your 'innocence' than by 'bussing' onto a roiling bandwagon, when keeping him around is of no value to you..? If Caius is not mafia, oh well, everyone is 'erring on the side of caution', you lose nothing in terms of how you are regarded...

I admit frankly that were I a cunning mafioso, that is exactly what I would be doing...

You are making valid points, I grant you that. I didn't think it that way. Still, he could be scum just as well as anybody else.
And he is not contributing, so not helping the town and indeed not a threat to the mafia either.

But do you think mafia will so easily get away with it? In El Barto's game (which is running parallel) I remember Visorslash being lynched regardless of the fact that he had voted one of the other mafiosi. Especially in a game where bandwaggoning is a must. Here they would look guilty if they did not vote for the leading candidate (for trying to let the town undergo a cruel and unfair punishment).

So if Caius is really scum, if mafia voted for him I think they would gain nothing either.

Anyway, that is my opinion, feel free to differ.

[Diana Abnoba]

The thing is an inactive townie hurts us in the end rounds (especially in this game). If Caius is not lynched now, then we all will forget him and never lynch him. Then when the number is down to say around 5-6 players, and say we still have 2 mafia left, the mafia can just not vote, (along with Caius) or vote different from each other, and we never get a majority again, and this gets a townie killed each round from then on, and mafia wins. Non-voting players must die early (when we have the time (enough players left) to be able to take the hit if they are town) so this doesn't happen. Inactive player are no threat to the mafia in this game, if fact they can help them in the end rounds.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I think that we are all in agreement that Caius could, theoretically, hurt the town in the final rounds: that is not the case right now, when regardless of his alignment he cannot hurt the town. Lynch him in on the second day after this one.

It behooves us to find the active mafia.

[classical_hero]

I am surprised that people don't understand what my role is. The useful thing is that my vote still counts even though Iam dead in the game, so that makes me rather powerful, since I can't be silenced by anyone.
vote:Andres