PDA

View Full Version : Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

ArizonaTeach
06-27-2007, 06:24 PM
Ok, I gotta ask. How in the heck did you figure out the odds of hitting a power role with a "normal" vote? I guess you could say the town rarely hangs power roles because those roles roleclaim at the 11th hour and avert disaster, but then they're as good as dead anyway because the scum will kill them for us(probably after we speed lynch some other poor townie).I'll answer this specifically, since it was a question directed to me. With a purely random vote with no opportunity to role-claim, there is a chance a power role will die. With a "normal" vote, that chance is greatly reduced, both because of role-claims and because some power roles know each others' identity and would not vote for that person (most likely). And you are absolutely wrong about the second part of what you said. Ask anyone who played in M4 - a Day Two role claim actually PROTECTED the claimers. I AM NOT ADVOCATING MAKING ROLE-CLAIMS. In M4 it was relatively forced. I'm just saying that they can be valuable, valuable tools and a random forced vote might take one of them out. And if I'm understanding some other stuff being said here, people are suggesting casual role-claims be done on Day Two? What the heck is THAT about?

As for the rest of your post, yes, sure, publically using a randomizer to cast votes would eliminate the possibility of a scum fix. Conceded. Point Two we still disagree on, but fine, and point three, I think we're right in the middle on. But if you're not going to push for random votes, I'm not gonna force the issue at all. I still think it's a hideous idea that hurts the town, but if you're not gonna die on this hill, I don't wanna either, and I'm about as sick as discussing random votes as others are about Oracle/Apprentice.

But I will say "it's what they do on mafia.net" has never been real popular and messing with peoples' heads....totally NOT cool.

HazelNutCoffee
06-27-2007, 06:28 PM
I just don't understand how a random vote can be guaranteed. The way I see it, a random vote can only work if it's actually, truly random by everyone. I don't see why a cultist would go along with this. It would make sense for a cultist to claim to random vote and then acutally place a calculated vote to screw everything up.

DiggitCamara
06-27-2007, 06:30 PM
I just don't understand how a random vote can be guaranteed. The way I see it, a random vote can only work if it's actually, truly random by everyone. I don't see why a cultist would go along with this. It would make sense for a cultist to claim to random vote and then acutally place a calculated vote to screw everything up.
Was this post directed at me?

HazelNutCoffee
06-27-2007, 06:32 PM
Was this post directed at me?
Not particularly. Just at the idea of random voting in general. It doesn't seem like the idea is being particularly advocated by anyone at this point, so I'm willing to let it drop.

Mtgman
06-27-2007, 06:33 PM
Mtgman, in your discussion about random voting above, I think you said that power roles should roleclaim on Day 2 - the day following the random vote. I hope I misunderstood you, as I cannot imagine why you would want to expose the town's secrets so soon, and for no good reason. Actually I can imagine why - if you are Cult.

If I misunderstood you I am sorry - some of those long posts make my eyes cross.
I re-read my post, and while I'm certainly guilty of rambling and being unclear at times, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that I think the power roles should roleclaim on day 2. Could you quote that bit for me and I'll try to re-phrase it somehow? The only case I can see for why a town power role should claim is if the process to select players, which is mathematical and unbiased by scum with hidden agendas, starts a countdown to the dunking of said power role.

Enjoy,
Steven

Mtgman
06-27-2007, 06:36 PM
I just don't understand how a random vote can be guaranteed. The way I see it, a random vote can only work if it's actually, truly random by everyone. I don't see why a cultist would go along with this. It would make sense for a cultist to claim to random vote and then acutally place a calculated vote to screw everything up.
I think I'm going to start a seperate thread, probably in GQ, about this. The random, but verifiable, strategy may be a breaking strategy for the town. I'm going to need some other game theorists to help determine if it is or not. I'm still not advocating it here, because it's completely unfun, but mathematically it's interesting.

Enjoy,
Steven

SnakesCatLady
06-27-2007, 06:41 PM
Let's look at the pros of a, verifiable, random voting process. Firstly, it's verifiable. ;) Secondly, it does what so many people here are trying to do with their FOS and early votes, except with teeth. It straps someone into the dunking chair and says "tell me why I shouldn't let the fishes nibble your tasty bits." A honest townie can either take one for the team, or roleclaim. If they're a power role they get a reprive, if they're a Monk, they get off. If we aim the vote process at scum they can either claim power role, in which case we expect them to be sacrificed during the next night or two or swing the dunking chair back their way, or they can take one for the team. Scum claiming Monk is a Bad Idea™ because all it takes is one real Monk counter-claiming and then we dunk them both and have a nice trade of 1/23rd of our citizens for 1/7th of the scum.

Thirdly, it's an objective, transparent, process. If we use subjective processes, such as our own guts, then they can be manipulated by those with more information than us, i.e. the scum. If we start a bandwagon for someone the scum know is the Prophet, they'll work hard, subtly, but hard, to derail it or start another for someone else. How could they do this with an objective, transparent, process? Say, "please don't kill him/her, he's/she's the prophet" or support his/her false roleclaim(and give themselves away in the process)?



Bolding mine. It appears that you are advocating a random vote toDay and role claiming afterward.

I'm not a math wiz, or a computer wiz, or a wiz at all. I make beads and love cats. So I don't understand how you can get everyone to vote a random vote. Everyone could say they voted randomly but how could you make sure of it? Scum by definition are not honest.

Pasta
06-27-2007, 06:49 PM
Anyway, it's just an idea.There may be something to this. We don't need to use official votes: just a special declaration like: "The oracle is X" where X is chosen randomly by all players except the apprentice. Howver, the only way this works (as you say) is if we can get a large number of players to commit to doing it. Further than that, though, we'd need a large number of players to commit to committing to doing it. Basically, anything that splits the field into "likely apprentice/oracle" and "not likely apprentice/oracle" is a bad idea since it narrows the target list for the scum. When we ask for a show of hands in favor of the idea, would the apprentice/oracle be likely to say "yea" or "nay" or nothing at all? Would the apprentice/oracle vote early or late in the voting sequence? While I agree the answers to these are as hard for the scum as they are for us, breaking the (30-Nscum)-fold symmetry that we (the town) currently have in our favor is something I'd save until the benefits are clear. (I know you're just presenting the idea to the group, not advocating it, in case my tone sounds accusatory or whatnot.)

Oh wait: The other huge problem is that the death of the apprentice means instant identification of the oracle. Maybe not so bad, but it's certainly an all-our-eggs-in-one-basket approach that would make me a little nervous. Hmmm... maybe there's another way...

HazelNutCoffee
06-27-2007, 07:01 PM
My fellow brothers and sisters in Nairu. While it WOULD be wonderful if the Oracle was able to identify the Apprentice early on in the game, I really don't think that's what our top priority should be at this point. Anything we do to assist such an identification inevitably makes it easier for any and all to find the Oracle and/or the Apprentice. Not to mention that these plans seem contingent on mass cooperation. The presence of cultists screws everything up anyway because it is highly likely they will pretend to go along with the plan while doing something to mess with the results. There is nothing we can do to guard against this.

I'm inclined to agree with storyteller and Pleonast in FOS'ing everyone who keeps discussing these strategies. Either that or pour hot coffee on your heads.

Mtgman
06-27-2007, 07:07 PM
Bolding mine. It appears that you are advocating a random vote toDay and role claiming afterward.

I'm not a math wiz, or a computer wiz, or a wiz at all. I make beads and love cats. So I don't understand how you can get everyone to vote a random vote. Everyone could say they voted randomly but how could you make sure of it? Scum by definition are not honest.
So how about I re-phrase the bolded part as such. "A honest townie who is strapped into the dunking chair on a particular day can take advantage of the 12-hour countdown window to roleclaim, if they feel it will save them(i.e. they're a power role or a Monk). An innocent vanilla townie should just take one for the team and consider it an unlucky break."

I think that's a little bit clearer.

Enjoy,
Steven

USCDiver
06-27-2007, 07:17 PM
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, and I think we should, would be the night kill math. How do we interpret a night with just one kill? No kills? Three kills? How do we detect the recruitment? These are going to be key questions. I'll think about them a bit and post my thoughts later.

Hmmm, I'll get the ball rolling on this, albeit off the top of my head with little in-depth analysis.

At the beginning of the Game (Night 1), there are 2 possible kills. The Cultists and the Crusader. Now the Crusader is only 50% accurate. So if there is one kill on Night One it could mean two things. 1)Cultists made a kill and Crusader was unsuccessful(or chose not to kill). 2)The Crusader was successful and the Cultists failed to kill. This second scenario is most compelling. For the Cultists to have a no-kill they either chose not to kill, recruited, were blocked or activated the psychopath.

More data (from subsequent nights) would be necessary, but this just ends up complicating things enormously. If the psychopath was activated, it ups the possible kills to 3 on each night. But anything less than 3 leads to so many different possible conclusions that analysis beforehand is moot.

Someone with more mathematical sense or patience may come along and expound some.

NAF1138
06-27-2007, 07:37 PM
Ok, so I have been more or less following along all day, and I have a few minutes of free time to jot out a couple of quick ideas before I leave. I donít really have anything to add to the current discussions, but we have been talking a lot and that is nothing but good.

The game started on page 4 and we are now on page 11, so that is a solid 7 pages of material being generated in the first 24 hours of play. I say, good for us. So I took some time to just skim back through the day so far. (Something I like to do when it looks like conversation is leading us away from our scum hunt)

You know what I noticedÖin the 7 pages of game posts, there are a lot of players I am not noticing. Let me just list off some names and yíall can tell me if you think they have been making their presence known. Some of them have posted a bit, Iím sure, but like Fluid said, those are the people to be extra wary of, the people who canít be called out as lurkers.

Zuma
Malacandra
Fretful Propentine
Captain Carrot
Zeriel
MonkeyMench
Autolycus
Captain Klutz


I know NOTHING about any of you. (in this game) The fact that some of you are veterans and yet have failed to make any real impression on me is even more surprising.
I know a couple of you are posting, (zuma and Malacandra are the only ones I remember off the top of my head that have posts) but you are like freakiní blank pages.

I am calling you all out. Speak up.

HazelNutCoffee
06-27-2007, 08:28 PM
I am calling you all out. Speak up.

I agree. Where is everyone? *looks suspiciously towards the locked and boarded-up houses*

zuma
06-27-2007, 08:40 PM
I'm too busy to stick around here all day having back and forth type conversation posts. I can do what I did last night and jump on around 12-3 a.m. pacific and address several topics. This won't change for the next few days.

I have next week off (which is why I have zero free through friday) and after that hopefully won't be as busy. Until then my middle of the night posts are all I can promise.

Fretful Porpentine
06-27-2007, 08:53 PM
I am calling you all out. Speak up.
I've posted -- several times, in fact -- but at the moment I haven't got anything terribly useful to contribute, and I feel like a lot of the mistakes we made in M2 came from people posting way the hell too much when they had nothing to say.

For what it's worth, if previous experience is anything to go by, I suspect the people who are talking a lot and proposing strategies are mostly vanilla townies. (I definitely think sachertorte is a townie, because I'm having a hard time seeing a Cultist draw attention to himself by pushing an unpopular strategy that hard.) Right now I'm most suspicious of Autolycus, because his silence this time around seems really uncharacteristic compared to what we saw in M2, and he definitely has been online today since he posted in another thread. Not ready to cast a vote yet, though.

Otherwise, I haven't a clue.

Scuba_Ben
06-27-2007, 09:10 PM
(I definitely think sachertorte is a townie, because I'm having a hard time seeing a Cultist draw attention to himself by pushing an unpopular strategy that hard.)I'm inclined to agree with Fretful Porpentine - the intensity that sachertorte has displayed makes me wary about em, yet I'm all too well aware that that wariness could very well be reality backfiring. Hopefully I'll have a better feel on em by this time tomorrow.

But what people are reporting about Autolycus in previous games does worry me. I'm wondering if it would be a useful strategy to eliminate, or at least apply pressure to, the worst lurkers. (We did discuss in the forbidden thread for M3 techniques to discourage lurking; none of them seem to have made it into M5.)

NAF1138
06-27-2007, 09:33 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Fretful Porpentine - the intensity that sachertorte has displayed makes me wary about em, yet I'm all too well aware that that wariness could very well be reality backfiring. Hopefully I'll have a better feel on em by this time tomorrow.

But what people are reporting about Autolycus in previous games does worry me. I'm wondering if it would be a useful strategy to eliminate, or at least apply pressure to, the worst lurkers. (We did discuss in the forbidden thread for M3 techniques to discourage lurking; none of them seem to have made it into M5.)

It is made worse than just his behavior in M2. In the pirates game, where I was his scum mate, I activly encouraged him to lurk and post weird disconected thoughts as a useful scum tactic. It worked too. I sort of feel responsible for creating this moster. (or at least growing it.)

I hate to say we should force everyone to post, but lurking can be bad. Everyone needs not only to post but to post theories and analysis of some sort, that way when they die we can follow their trail. Especially useful if they are scum, but surprisingly useful if they are not.

Fretful, you are right you have posted. I was calling out people who seem to be below the radar, not just people who haven't posted. I had forgotten you were in the game when I looked at the player list. Same with Mal and zuma. I knew you guys were posting, but I couldn't remember a single thing you had said.

NAF1138
06-27-2007, 09:35 PM
The first half of that post isn't really all that cohearant. What I am saying is that we need to stamp out lurking as a scum strategy, if you have ideas I am open to them. Because it can be a scum strategy, and a very good one. Auto only got night killed because he annoyed one of the night killers. Otherwise I think he would have lasted several more days.

SnakesCatLady
06-27-2007, 10:33 PM
I will be thinking about how to deter lurking - I can string beads and think at the same time once I have the pattern in place. At this point in the game it is difficult to tell who is lurking as a strategy and who just doesn't have anything to contribute. Everyone needs to try to contribute any ideas they have. Those of you who are more experienced and knowledgeable about the game (or think you are :) ) try not to be too cruel to people who are advancing ideas. It is discouraging to post something and have a bunch of snarky comebacks or put downs, and that doesn't encourage new players to contribute. I'm not saying not to disagree with ideas, just try not to be hateful about it.

One idea I have for discouraging lurkers can only reasonably be put into play after a couple of game "Days". Once there is actually something to look at and talk about, players who aren't contributing to the discussion need to be called out. If they persist in not participating, give 'em a bath. The nature of this game is that we have to lose players and if I am not sure of my suspicions I would rather vote for someone who isn't participating than someone who is.

Pasta
06-27-2007, 10:36 PM
What I am saying is that we need to stamp out lurking as a scum strategy, if you have ideas I am open to them.Isn't the way to discourage scum lurking simply to kill lurkers? Or at least highly consider it? I've got eight FsOS pointed at that list of yours, until they convince me otherwise. If I've got nothing solid to go on late in the Day, the "soft" posters are likely to get my vote. (Although I've got a few things to go on at present... I think.)

I worry some about pro-town power roles lurking, though. Don't stand out by being quiet, guys! Mix it up with the rest of the crowd. (Of course, now that I've said that, if you are lurking you'll need to ramp it up slowly...)

Pasta
06-27-2007, 10:39 PM
The nature of this game is that we have to lose players and if I am not sure of my suspicions I would rather vote for someone who isn't participating than someone who is.I second that. The best thing is to kill (very) likely scum. The next best thing is to kill off players about whom it will be hard to gain information, given that we're going to kill somebody.

Zeriel
06-27-2007, 10:57 PM
NAF, I've been posting every break I get, which are necessarily going to be on my lunch breaks and very later at night EST.

I'm actually going to FOS NAF1138 because I've got ten posts (counting this one) on this thread since game started, maybe not as many as the major players in the O/A discussion, but enough I was considering that I was talking too much and needed to pipe down and let some other lurkers come out.

I mean, so out of the 350 posts or so since game start, I've had 10. My "fair share" is 11-12ish (since there's 30 of us).

I mean, I'm concerned about lurking as a scum strategy too, but I'm personally more concerned with the few names I haven't seen ANY posts from.

Captain Klutz
06-27-2007, 10:58 PM
The other huge problem is that the death of the apprentice means instant identification of the oracle.
Yes, which is why the Apprentice should make no attempt to draw the Oracle's attention.

In fact, I think the only useful thing the Apprentice can do is to expose the Avatar (this is the only one that is a guaranteed accurate read).

Zeriel
06-27-2007, 10:58 PM
And yeah, what SnakesCatLady said--this is my first on-board game of Mafia(alike), and it's WAY different than the in-person version I'm used to.

HazelNutCoffee
06-27-2007, 11:47 PM
Hmmm, I'll get the ball rolling on this, albeit off the top of my head with little in-depth analysis.

At the beginning of the Game (Night 1), there are 2 possible kills. The Cultists and the Crusader. Now the Crusader is only 50% accurate. So if there is one kill on Night One it could mean two things. 1)Cultists made a kill and Crusader was unsuccessful(or chose not to kill). 2)The Crusader was successful and the Cultists failed to kill. This second scenario is most compelling. For the Cultists to have a no-kill they either chose not to kill, recruited, were blocked or activated the psychopath.

More data (from subsequent nights) would be necessary, but this just ends up complicating things enormously. If the psychopath was activated, it ups the possible kills to 3 on each night. But anything less than 3 leads to so many different possible conclusions that analysis beforehand is moot.

Someone with more mathematical sense or patience may come along and expound some.
I tried to run through the possible scenarios and I think my head just exploded. An absolute maximum of four kills are possible (if somehow the Avatar is burned after the Psychopath is activated, and the Crusader makes a successful kill on the same night). Anything other than four kills could mean any number of things, particularly as the nights progress. If we just go for the first night:

No kill possibilites (11 possible combinations):
Crusader
- fails/does not attempt kill
- attempts kill but blocked
- attempts kill and activates Psychopath
Cultists
- attempt kill but blocked
- does not attempt kill
- attempts recruit
- attempts kill and activates Psychopath

One kill possibilities:
Crusader succeeds, Cultists fail (for any of the aforementioned four reasons)
Cultists kill, Crusader fails (for any of the aforementioned three reasons)
Both fail, Avatar burned

Two kill possibilities:
Both Crusader and Cultists succeed. Psychopath not activated.
One succeeds, the other fails (for any of the above reasons), but the Avatar was burned.

Three kill possibilities:
Both succeed and the Avatar was burned.

Don't ask me to calculate the probabilities of each happening. There are three possible blocks and all of them have varied success rates, which make things somewhat complicated, to put it mildly. The only comfort we have, I suppose, is we'll know the Avatar's identity after they are burned, which will narrow down the possible scenarios.

Does anyone know what happens if the cultists attempt to recruit the Psychpath?

Idle Thoughts
06-27-2007, 11:51 PM
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, and I think we should, would be the night kill math. How do we interpret a night with just one kill? No kills? Three kills? How do we detect the recruitment? These are going to be key questions. I'll think about them a bit and post my thoughts later.

Enjoy,
Steven

Snipped.

In the other game, I and others always seemed to list all the things each circumstance COULD have been and then just went with and chose the most likely of them all after a bit of discussion and analyzation. Really, that's all I can see could be done.

I just don't understand how a random vote can be guaranteed. The way I see it, a random vote can only work if it's actually, truly random by everyone. I don't see why a cultist would go along with this. It would make sense for a cultist to claim to random vote and then acutally place a calculated vote to screw everything up.

That's just it. There can't. It will never be truly random because it's NOT truly random for everyone. I don't see how what you're saying here COULD be the case.


At the beginning of the Game (Night 1), there are 2 possible kills. The Cultists and the Crusader. Now the Crusader is only 50% accurate. So if there is one kill on Night One it could mean two things. 1)Cultists made a kill and Crusader was unsuccessful(or chose not to kill). 2)The Crusader was successful and the Cultists failed to kill. This second scenario is most compelling. For the Cultists to have a no-kill they either chose not to kill, recruited, were blocked or activated the psychopath.

Snipped and bolding mine. Or that one was successful and the other awaked the Psychopath. Or that one was successful and the other was blocked by the Alchemist.


I'm wondering if it would be a useful strategy to eliminate, or at least apply pressure to, the worst lurkers. (We did discuss in the forbidden thread for M3 techniques to discourage lurking; none of them seem to have made it into M5.)

I think it'd be MORE useful strategy to ask BM if he could, instead, maybe tighten the rules on lurking or subbing out if lurking too much. Really, the way this game is played and goes, there should be no reason why people couldn't make at least THREE posts a day in it. I know that sometimes things come up and people get busy and real life interferes, but then why bother signing up if you can't commit to at least three posts a day? Even if they're just to weigh in and give quick thoughts about current discussions, at least it's something and gives the rest of us stuff to use for or against those players themselves too. People like Auto though, and Captain Carrot, they haven't even posted once since the game began.

It's in these cases, then, that I'm more for subbing (or heavy laying on to post and get making up for it) rather than voting. But that applies to anyone not having posted yet (which they seem to be the only ones who haven't made even ONE).


Isn't the way to discourage scum lurking simply to kill lurkers? Or at least highly consider it? I've got eight FsOS pointed at that list of yours, until they convince me otherwise. If I've got nothing solid to go on late in the Day, the "soft" posters are likely to get my vote. (Although I've got a few things to go on at present... I think.)

:dubious:

You know, this gets me. This really, really gets me. You have EIGHT "FOS"s at all of them? You'd be fine with killing them all, one by one, just to "discourage" them? Why are you automatically thinking they're scum? How do you know? Surely there can't be eight cultists? Because that would mean we're all screwed from the onstart.

I just seriously don't get this thought process. Like I've said before, I think serious lurkers should be leaned on by BM and subbed out if still not able to make the needed number of posts a day. But voting and killing off and heavy suspicion just based on not posting? Maybe they're lurking. But maybe they're not. Who really knows? You and I and anyone else surely doesn't know save for themselves. I just think that's really fast to go after (or at least start making a case against) people.

I'm all for calling out lurkers and people who aren't posting...for example, see my mentions of Auto and C Carrot who haven't posted yet since the game began but who both seemingly have been on (according to their last online time) since. But subbing first, if needed, voting out later.

Idle Thoughts
06-27-2007, 11:53 PM
Wow, nice at-the-same-time-post there, HazelNutCoffee. It wasn't there when I previewed, haha.

HazelNutCoffee
06-28-2007, 12:05 AM
Wow, nice at-the-same-time-post there, HazelNutCoffee. It wasn't there when I previewed, haha.
C'mon, slowpoke. Keep up. ;)

I just realized that there is also the (admittedly very small) possibility that a no-kill could also happen after the Avatar was burned, since we have three potential blockers.

We're been casting suspicious looks at lurkers, but I want to know what happened to MadTheSwine. He posted a lot yesterday but has been rather silent today.

I really think lurking should be discouraged. In an IRL game it doesn't matter if you stay silent because people can still read your reactions to the game going on around you, but online all we have to go by is each other's posts. If you are innocent, you are not helping the town at all by keeping silent.

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 12:05 AM
[off-game]You know, the longest topic ever on here is the topic "a" which got up to 5,000 plus posts.

But thing is, with Days in here lasting five regular days (at least until it's down to 20 players) and Nights two,...and this topic is already passed 500 replies just two regular days into the first Day....I really think this one has a good chance of setting a new record for most posts in the SDMB history. NAF MII almost did it, and his, I don't think, even had Days lasting as long as BM is having them last.

That being said, I wonder what will happen if we seriously start to get up there with posts. Like when/if (however I think it's more of a "when") this reaches, say, 4,500, will the mods want to shut it down and have us start a part two of Mafia V? What if it DOES surpass "a"? Again, I think, if any, this topic has the best chance of doing that.

Just some late night thoughts from Idle Thoughts.[/off-game]

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 12:07 AM
C'mon, slowpoke. Keep up. ;)

I just realized that there is also the (admittedly very small) possibility that a no-kill could also happen after the Avatar was burned, since we have three potential blockers.

We're been casting suspicious looks at lurkers, but I want to know what happened to MadTheSwine. He posted a lot yesterday but has been rather silent today.

Yeah, that is a bit wonky....but *shrugs*..I can only speak for myself. Me, I have no life. I'm on at all hours of the day. :D Sometimes I sit in here and refresh it and wonder why anyone isn't posting second by second and then need to remind myself that they, unlike me, have lives.

I really think lurking should be discouraged. In an IRL game it doesn't matter if you stay silent because people can still read your reactions to the game going on around you, but online all we have to go by is each other's posts. If you are innocent, you are not helping the town at all by keeping silent.

At any rate, this is true.

Kyrie Eleison
06-28-2007, 12:21 AM
Well, I've caught up. Rather than post numerous little remarks in several posts, I'll post a big, stream of consciousness Idle Thoughts-style message, this one time only. I'm composing this as I review the thread, so topics are roughly in thread-order.

First, on the MadTheSwine & Clockwork Jackal kerfluffle: CJ's initial post does actually ring kind of scummy to me; it's a bit too "oh, whatever shall I do, I just don't know" for my taste. I can't really offer any justification for it, but I do know it's not as scummy as it might seem. None of you know that, though, so you'll have to make of it what you will. To the other point, I think it seems a bit disingenuous to fault someone for interpreting "X is a scum tell" as discouraging X. So, to sum up, no MtS hate on the first count, but a little bit of suspicion on the latter one.

I partially disagree with sachertorte; it seems to me that if the masons / Non-believers think they have a shot at claiming their own win, they should try for it.
I do not understand why some people seem to believe this, but I now know that it's a dangerously seductive idea. Is a team win somehow lessened by having to share it with a larger team? A win is a win; why needlessly exclude anyone? Why do you seem to be encouraging division among the non-cultists? How can this be a good thing?

Also, no scuba gear in the blessed pool, thank you. (That joke has to have been made somewhere already, but I must have overlooked it.)

On sachertorte Oracle/Apprentice scheme: First, I don't want to revive the discussion, but I feel compelled to at least comment on it since it was such a hot topic. Having participated in the M3 lurker thread with sachertorte, I'm not at all suspicious of his interest in game mechanics. His manner here is entirely consistent with his manner there.

However, I'm quite skeptical of this particular stratagem, as it suffers from two problems that I think he could have been aware of: First, any publicly agreed upon division of the players will result, over several days, in two players planting breadcrumbs and making references more frequently to players in one group or the other than would be expected by chance. Second, there's a fair chance that the Apprentice could be expected to object to any division that makes it unlikely that he'll be investigated. As it happened, everyone pretty much objected, but had there been only a few objectors, they would have made a nice pool of candidates for Apprentice hunting. So I'm a little bit suspicious of sachertorte as a result.

Random voting vs random FOSing: I personally have a higher comfort level with random FOSing during the first Day than random voting. Why? Because a FOS cannot be the gateway drug to a bandwagon, whereas a vote can be.
Eh? Would that the scum were silly enough to actually jump aboard a wagon with such weak justification. How simple it would be to detect them! The object is to dunk cultists, not to save believers. Bring on the bandwagon!

So in a nutshell, the Apprentice needs to find an unobvious way to say "Yo, Oracle! Over here!" asap....
Certainly not! As nice as it would be were it possible, how smart is it to bet that one Oracle will notice this subtle message while a handful of cultists will overlook it? This suggestion is likely to get the Apprentice killed, and is easily the most suspicious thing I've seen so far. Vote Hal Briston.

Pasta
06-28-2007, 12:22 AM
You know, this gets me. This really, really gets me. You have EIGHT "FOS"s at all of them? You'd be fine with killing them all, one by one, just to "discourage" them? Why are you automatically thinking they're scum? How do you know? Surely there can't be eight cultists? Because that would mean we're all screwed from the onstart.
Obvious they're not all scum. Obviously some of them just forgot they had a game to play. But, I'd bet the farm that there are one or two scum in there. And I would rather kill off a player that was never going to reveal information about him/herself if the odds that (s)he's scum is 2/8=25% or so. And, I wouldn't really suspect the zero-posters (whom you seem to be defending the most) -- they're probably just not playing. No, I'd suspect the "soft" posters who pseudo-lurk but are clearly present in the game.

Could you explain why you are defending the lurkers so much. I'm still not seeing your argument. Of course, one clear reason would be if you were scum. Is it that you know that NAF's list has, say, four scum in it? Are you worried that we might end up with a 50% chance of hitting scum through a strategy of suspecting the below-the-radar players? ... or better than 50% by passing over clearly absent players for more "active" lurkers?)

While I tossed out loose FOSs at the list (which was mostly in support of NAF's "calling them out"), I've still only got one Official Color Coded[TM] FOS pointed, and it remains.


On another note, I'm not going to post it here, because I'm happy to leave it be, but perhaps some other time some other place I'll describe the following, because I think it's pretty neat: I've got a way for the apprentice to identify himself to the oracle with exactly zero information revealed to other players now or in the future. It's provably information neutral regardless of future revelations. The scheme is based on public key cryptography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography). Again, I'll share it some other time, but I couldn't help mentioning it because I've been trying to come up with something all evening.

*d&r*

Pasta
06-28-2007, 12:26 AM
[off-game]That being said, I wonder what will happen if we seriously start to get up there with posts. Like when/if (however I think it's more of a "when") this reaches, say, 4,500, will the mods want to shut it down and have us start a part two of Mafia V?[/off-game]
[off-game]
If nothing else, it'll get my embarrassingly low posts/day up. I wouldn't think vBulletin would have any problem maintaining one long thread versus two smaller ones, but I agree: we're likely to test that theory with this one!
[/off-game]

Pasta
06-28-2007, 12:31 AM
...provably information neutral...

that's not a typo: provably. I realized that it might get read as the much weaker "probably". If I could edit, I would have changed the wording to make it clearer. Okay, seriously this time, I'm done.

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 12:48 AM
Obvious they're not all scum.

But you just said in your last post that it's "Eight FOSs"? All I don't understand is just how not posting is a ring of suspicion with you.


Obviously some of them just forgot they had a game to play. But, I'd bet the farm that there are one or two scum in there. And I would rather kill off a player that was never going to reveal information about him/herself if the odds that (s)he's scum is 2/8=25% or so. And, I wouldn't really suspect the zero-posters (whom you seem to be defending the most) -- they're probably just not playing. No, I'd suspect the "soft" posters who pseudo-lurk but are clearly present in the game.

While I'm not as gung-ho as you, I'd keep my mind open to it. But you seem to be saying you're fairly sure of yourself. This is just what I don't get, which is combined with this:

Could you explain why you are defending the lurkers so much.

The key word in there is "lurkers". This means players are watching and following the thread along yet not posting. But how do you know this is what they're doing? I've seen only two that chimed in accounting for their actions so far. What of the others? I don't understand why you're calling them lurkers. You don't know if they're lurking or if they just haven't had the time to even read this topic yet. Do you see/get my point yet? Yet you're all ready to vote for them, saying:

And I would rather kill off a player that was never going to reveal information about him/herself if the odds that (s)he's scum is 2/8=25% or so.

Then how would SUBBING THEM OUT and finding another player who WILL and WOULD reveal information about him/herself be any worse? :dubious: I just really don't get this, but I guess the feeling is mutual with you.

Of course, one clear reason would be if you were scum. Is it that you know that NAF's list has, say, four scum in it? Are you worried that we might end up with a 50% chance of hitting scum through a strategy of suspecting the below-the-radar players? ... or better than 50% by passing over clearly absent players for more "active" lurkers?)

If I were scum, wouldn't I, by the same token, just let you sit back and take those chances since there's a half chance you'd knock off someone I'd want you to? Even if you go by that being the case, which I'll even conceed since I like keeping ALL POSSIBLITIES OPEN all the time, why would I do that? How smart would that be to have someone who was scummy trying to keep other scummies in the game. I'd think they'd be a bit smarter than that, myself.

I just don't get why you're so for killing off people who aren't posting. Note, I didn't use the term "lurking/lurkers" there. If they aren't posting, or were but aren't as much anymore, then obviously there must be good reason for it. And while it very well COULD be: They're scum,....it could also be any other number of reasons and could mean that even if you DID start voting for them and encouraging others to do so that they still wouldn't be able to post in their own defense.

Seriously...what if that was the case? Would you still be for it? Let's all go in on trying to rout out people who aren't posting as much as see if it's because they're really scum or because they might have a high power role and might be afraid of saying or revealing too much. And if we accidently kill off the Priest or Oracle..well heck, at least we discourged them from not posting, right? :dubious:

Come on. Are you at least starting to see what I'm saying? All it is is that if someone's not posting, I just don't see automatic vote and trying to kill them off as being good, that's all.

While I tossed out loose FOSs at the list (which was mostly in support of NAF's "calling them out"), I've still only got one Official Color Coded[TM] FOS pointed, and it remains.

Well, that's fine. I can't say it's not the same for me.


On another note, I'm not going to post it here, because I'm happy to leave it be, but perhaps some other time some other place I'll describe the following, because I think it's pretty neat: I've got a way for the apprentice to identify himself to the oracle with exactly zero information revealed to other players now or in the future. It's provably information neutral regardless of future revelations. The scheme is based on public key cryptography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography). Again, I'll share it some other time, but I couldn't help mentioning it because I've been trying to come up with something all evening.

*d&r*


Yeah, you better duck and run. :p

Captain Klutz
06-28-2007, 12:49 AM
(I definitely think sachertorte is a townie, because I'm having a hard time seeing a Cultist draw attention to himself by pushing an unpopular strategy that hard.)
Actually, I think sachertorte would post that way whether or not he is town, as that is the sort of discussion he is interested in. I'm interested in it too, but so far it hasn't really helped the town.

I am calling you all out. Speak up.
Yes, I haven't posted much yet, mainly because I haven't got much useful to contribute. The minimum contribution we can expect from everyone is a vote together with justification - anyone who fails to vote, or who gives unconvincing reasons, is worthy of a strong FOS.

HazelNutCoffee
06-28-2007, 01:02 AM
Yes, I haven't posted much yet, mainly because I haven't got much useful to contribute. The minimum contribution we can expect from everyone is a vote together with justification - anyone who fails to vote, or who gives unconvincing reasons, is worthy of a strong FOS.
Posting in and of itself is something useful to contribute. Simply voting isn't going to be very helpful, even with justification. Posts don't have to be profound. Agree, disagree, speculate, suspect, react - just please post so we have more stuff to work with here!

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
06-28-2007, 01:25 AM
Eh? Would that the scum were silly enough to actually jump aboard a wagon with such weak justification. How simple it would be to detect them! The object is to dunk cultists, not to save believers. Bring on the bandwagon!

Scum certainly aren't the only ones capable or likely to jump on bandwagons against townies. And I was not advocating against bandwagons...or random selections. I was, in fact, pointing out that one variety of random selection (FOSing) carries with it less inherent risk for town than the other random option (voting), especially during the early Days when odds are already skewed towards us dunking town.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 01:41 AM
I just realized that there is also the (admittedly very small) possibility that a no-kill could also happen after the Avatar was burned, since we have three potential blockers.

I want to clarify this, since the misunderstanding appears to be my fault in my wording. If the Avatar is lynched, the revenge kill will be a Day kill NOT a Night kill. That is, the random death will occur simultaneously with the lynch prior to the Night beginning. Further, because it is a Day kill, it cannot be blocked by the Priest, Disciple, or Alchemist because their abilities are only usable at Night.



To address another rules question, ALL roles, regardless of what is in their description may converse in the thread at Night. The parts about the Priest being in prayer, the Oracle in a ritual, the Monks in a vow of silence, etc. was just my attempt to use color to explain why they couldn't strategize at night with people they trust, like the Cultists can. IOW, from a storyline POV, all of the Night discussion, drinking, celebrating/lamenting occurs in the evening hours after the dunking and before bed, and all Night actions and Night discussion happen when everyone is sleeping. Sorry if I confused anyone with that.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 01:51 AM
I think it'd be MORE useful strategy to ask BM if he could, instead, maybe tighten the rules on lurking or subbing out if lurking too much. Really, the way this game is played and goes, there should be no reason why people couldn't make at least THREE posts a day in it. I know that sometimes things come up and people get busy and real life interferes, but then why bother signing up if you can't commit to at least three posts a day? Even if they're just to weigh in and give quick thoughts about current discussions, at least it's something and gives the rest of us stuff to use for or against those players themselves too. People like Auto though, and Captain Carrot, they haven't even posted once since the game began.

I haven't seen a post since day start from Autolycus or Captain Carrot; however, the day is only 36 hours into the allotted 120. Now, we have to also remember that this thread grows quickly and that is a daunting task; that is, it may take only a couple minutes to post in another thread, but it could take an hour or more to catch up, and then even more time to compose a useful post.

What I will ask is, if you want to discuss lurking in the game, please encourage them to post through in-game methods. If you think someone is legitimately not participating, please PM me, and I'll look into it. That said, I don't think not posting for a 36 hour period is necessarily a lack of participation, as it could be any number of real life circumstances. However, I will keep my eye out for them over the rest of the Day and prod as necessary.

Autolycus
06-28-2007, 02:53 AM
I apologize for my delay. I do not intend on lurking. Between this games complexity, and how I plan on approaching my role-playing to this scenario, it has taken me a while to get started. My role-playing has annoyed people in the past, so I am trying to work out how I can have fun without being a detrimental aspect.

zuma
06-28-2007, 06:14 AM
As I mentioned earlier, I'm more or less spending all my time at work this week in order to get a lot of things done before the weekend. My participation will be limited until the weekend.

Anyway, my thoughts through page 8:


In general, I believe that it's scummy to defend another player on the first day. Only the scum have information about roles, and it's a known scum strategy to warm up to a townie by defending him/her. There's not really any good reason for a townie to defend someone else this early in the game. NAF, J'accuse!

--FCOD

I can see this as a scum strategy, but I really disagree that it's default scummy to do so. On my limited experience, I know I defended Blaster Master quite vigorously when everyone was ready to string him up on day 2 of M2 when I was pretty sure he was town, and I was as well. It wasn't the first day, sure, but it wasn't far removed. I was just a clueless townie in that game.

As an aside, I think I'm getting pretty good at identifying townies here and there, but horrible at picking out scum. I was pretty sure capy was town on day 1 of m3, and Idle when I tried to frame him, even though I had no knowlege of whether or not they were.

Pleonast: Your explanation of your vote/unvote based on mistaking Scuba and USC sounds reasonable enough.

zuma
06-28-2007, 06:35 AM
Page 9-10

More discussion of the Oracle and how to find the apprentice. I too am starting to get a little tired of trying to set up plans about how the apprentice should announce himself. There is one Oracle and several scum... I think any feelers the apprentice sends out would be much more likely to be picked up by scum as by the Oracle.

I'm quite the fan of people talking. I even do it myself - sometimes when I'd be better keeping my mouth shut. Talk away.

The only thing I object to is the practice of saying " I vote player name to get him to do something." Whether that something be to talk, or to make a roleclaim, don't vote me just to make me do it. If you're going to put me forward for full-immersion baptism in Nairu's holy water, give some reasons and I'll try and answer them one way or another. Say something controversial or challenging and I'll reply. maybe I'll try and refute the statement, maybe I'll ask questions.

I simply won't respond to any form of pressure vote. Not in this game nor any other. I'm not stopping you from making pressure votes, or responding to them if you wish. I will not do so, is all.

Thanks for your response. I can kind of see your side in this, but I am still uncomfortable with the idea that you'd simply refuse to respond.

Sacherete is starting to attact attention due to his not letting go of the Oracle/Apprentice speculation, and it's starting to bug. But I can't imagine scum putting this much effort and attracting so much attention on day 1.

zuma
06-28-2007, 06:44 AM
So in a nutshell, the Apprentice needs to find an unobvious way to say "Yo, Oracle! Over here!" asap....

Certainly not! As nice as it would be were it possible, how smart is it to bet that one Oracle will notice this subtle message while a handful of cultists will overlook it? This suggestion is likely to get the Apprentice killed, and is easily the most suspicious thing I've seen so far. Vote Hal Briston.

Good catch. I think that may be the scummiest thing I've seen so far as well.

Two days in and I guess I'll vote: Hal Briston as well for now.

zuma
06-28-2007, 08:53 AM
Current unofficial vote count:

Clockwork Jackal (1) MadTheSwine
MadTheSwine (1) storeyteller0910
NAF1138 (1) FlyingCowOfDoom
sachertorte (2) SnakesCatLady, Pleonast
Hal Briston (2) Kyrie Eleison, zuma

7 votes total? I think in the next 24-48 hours it'd be a good thing to get some people to start voting. FOS is all well and good, but actual votes are taken more seriously.

Malacandra
06-28-2007, 09:04 AM
I agree. The major problem I have is that my mathematical, game-theorist's brain has trouble coping with the absence of information. Still, we have to start somewhere. So I'll vote zuma, not because I especially think I have anything on him but because, in the event of his turning up scum, it can be taken as a minor point in my favour that I was willing to see him dunked. (Not a huge point, admittedly, since scum will cheerfully vote for each other, especially when there's small risk of the vote actually resulting in a death. But like I say, we have to start somewhere.)

zuma
06-28-2007, 09:17 AM
Good a reason as any, Mal. Day 1s suck in this game. I think there may be a reason they usually start at night. At least a few people have something to go on.

Current unofficial vote count:

Clockwork Jackal (1) MadTheSwine
MadTheSwine (1) storeyteller0910
NAF1138 (1) FlyingCowOfDoom
sachertorte (2) SnakesCatLady, Pleonast
Hal Briston (2) Kyrie Eleison, zuma
zuma (1) Malacandra

Fretful Porpentine
06-28-2007, 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Briston
So in a nutshell, the Apprentice needs to find an unobvious way to say "Yo, Oracle! Over here!" asap....


Certainly not! As nice as it would be were it possible, how smart is it to bet that one Oracle will notice this subtle message while a handful of cultists will overlook it? This suggestion is likely to get the Apprentice killed, and is easily the most suspicious thing I've seen so far. Vote Hal Briston.
I disagree -- given that the Oracle knows who he or she is, nobody else knows who the Oracle is, and the Oracle can investigate people when the scum can't, I can think of a few ways the Apprentice could make this work. The risks that do come into play come later, after either Oracle or Apprentice has been exposed, when people go back through their posts looking for signals -- and there's definitely a payoff for such a risk if the Apprentice gets a few Nights to take advantage of his or her improved powers.

Zeriel
06-28-2007, 09:26 AM
See, now I'm torn. I still think NAF1138's purportedly anti-lurker post was scummy as all get-out, since there were at least a few non-lurkers on it. Hal Briston's post looks more and more scummy every time it's quoted. And Kyrie Eleison is nudging my radar a little, not as much as Clockwork Jackal did prior, but still enough. Finally, Captain Klutz's explanation for a good reason to mostly lurk just gives me a bad vibe.

For now, I think that adds up, with my previous suspicions about the particular way he went about his defense of Mad, to me deciding to
vote NAF1138

I also wish there was an easier way to get in-thread post counts, because it would make figuring out who the lurkers are significantly easier--I'm especially interested, given my suspicions, in any disjunct between NAF1138's list of lurkers and the list of the bottom eight posters in the thread. I'll work on that after work tonight.

Zeriel
06-28-2007, 09:28 AM
Bah, dammit.
Clearly I meant to vote NAF1138.

Queuing
06-28-2007, 09:33 AM
A few things:


I don't hate the idea of everyone picking a name and yelling it out, allowing the Oracle to find the apprentice. From a risk/reward perspective I see a much greater reward then the previous oracle/apprentice discussion.

If I understand the rules correctly, once the Oracle investigates the Apprentice the apprentice gains a better percentage of being correct in their investigations, eventually becoming infallible as well. This would give us 2 powerful investigators, and could hasten the demise of the cult. As stated by others by day 5 or so there should be enough investigations by the Oracle to break the back of the cult. So wouldn't better investigations by the Apprentice hasten this process along?

The downside, as I see it, is that if one is found so is the other. Unless this happens very quickly, say we dunk the apprentice today or tomorrow, or s/he is night killed in the first 2 nights the information gained would outweigh this risk. As well we do have a priest who can protect the oracle until the cult find the priest (or s/he is dunked). As well it would take some of the guessing game out of "when to reveal".

Ok, so the cult might not agree to the plan. So? All it should take is a majority, or say 20 people to agree to the plan to make it moot. 20 names should make enough noise to make the risk worthwhile. I do realize this cuts the group size that the cults have to choose from to get an investigating role to 1/10 (2/20), however I still see a worthwhile reward.

Pleonast: Your explanation of your vote/unvote based on mistaking Scuba and USC sounds reasonable enough.

I don't agree with this completely. I still am not buying the actions of Pleonast, and if I was forced to vote he (along with NAF, Diggit Camara and Pasta) are on my shortlist.

Diggit for similiar reasons as Pleonast (which I have previously stated).

NAF partly because I don't like this statement:

I was calling out people who seem to be below the radar, not just people who haven't posted. I had forgotten you were in the game when I looked at the player list. Same with Mal and zuma. I knew you guys were posting, but I couldn't remember a single thing you had said.

Your inability to remember players statements should not be used as a reason to find them suspicious.

Pasta for saying "oh I have this brilliant idea but I won't post it now. You will have to wait". Huh? You have a brilliant idea then post it. Don't attempt to make us think "oh look at this smart person with a great idea, we better leave him/her alone"

On preview: Zuriel, you can click on the number of posts in the main forum page. This will bring up a list of everyone who has posted, and the number of times they have posted

zuma
06-28-2007, 09:36 AM
Current unofficial vote count:

Clockwork Jackal (1) MadTheSwine
MadTheSwine (1) storeyteller0910
NAF1138 (2) FlyingCowOfDoom, zerial
sachertorte (2) SnakesCatLady, Pleonast
Hal Briston (2) Kyrie Eleison, zuma

Fretful, any clues the apprentice gives are far more likely to be picked up by many scum vs. a single oracle.
zuma (1) Malacandra

zuma
06-28-2007, 09:38 AM
I hate screwing up my formatting.

Current unofficial vote count:

Clockwork Jackal (1) MadTheSwine
MadTheSwine (1) storeyteller0910
NAF1138 (2) FlyingCowOfDoom, zerial
sachertorte (2) SnakesCatLady, Pleonast
Hal Briston (2) Kyrie Eleison, zuma
zuma (1) Malacandra

FlyingCowOfDoom
06-28-2007, 09:45 AM
The downside, as I see it, is that if one is found so is the other.I'm confused. Why is this true?

--FCOD

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 09:45 AM
Finally, Captain Klutz's explanation for a good reason to mostly lurk just gives me a bad vibe.He did what in the who now?
Yes, I haven't posted much yet, mainly because I haven't got much useful to contribute. The minimum contribution we can expect from everyone is a vote together with justification - anyone who fails to vote, or who gives unconvincing reasons, is worthy of a strong FOS.I don't see anything in his other posts, either. Ok. Vote Zeriel.

USCDiver
06-28-2007, 09:46 AM
For now, I think that adds up, with my previous suspicions about the particular way he went about his defense of Mad, to me deciding to
vote NAF1138

I also wish there was an easier way to get in-thread post counts, because it would make figuring out who the lurkers are significantly easier--I'm especially interested, given my suspicions, in any disjunct between NAF1138's list of lurkers and the list of the bottom eight posters in the thread. I'll work on that after work tonight.

[out of character]
Since I've already had my remediation earlier in the thread...
votes are in Blue
unvotes are in Red
FOS in DarkOrange

Also, isn't there a way to get a post count in-thread by clicking some button on the blue tool bar at the top of the thread? I think it was mentioned in a previous Mafia Thread.
[/ooc]

Hockey Monkey
06-28-2007, 09:47 AM
<snipped>
I also wish there was an easier way to get in-thread post counts, because it would make figuring out who the lurkers are significantly easier--I'm especially interested, given my suspicions, in any disjunct between NAF1138's list of lurkers and the list of the bottom eight posters in the thread. I'll work on that after work tonight.

Go out to the main MPSIMS page, find the Cult thread and over on the right where it has the total number of posts...click on that.

Blaster Master 66
sachertorte 51
HazelNutCoffee 35
NAF1138 35
Hal Briston 34
DiggitCamara 29
FlyingCowOfDoom 27
Idle Thoughts 19
Queuing 18
Mtgman 18
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies 17
Zeriel 17
Scuba_Ben 16
storyteller0910 16
Pleonast 16
Pasta 13
SnakesCatLady 12
zuma 12
MadTheSwine 12
USCDiver 11
Fretful Porpentine 10
Hockey Monkey 10
ArizonaTeach 8
MonkeyMensch 8
MHaye 7
Clockwork Jackal 7
fluiddruid 6
Malacandra 5
Autolycus 5
Captain Klutz 5
Captain Carrot 2
Projammer 2
Dragoness 2
Kyrie Eleison 2
capybara 1
Millit the Frail 1
panamajack 1

USCDiver
06-28-2007, 09:50 AM
Thanks, Hockey Monkey... and I see the voting color was already addressed

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 09:51 AM
Good a reason as any, Mal. Day 1s suck in this game. I think there may be a reason they usually start at night. At least a few people have something to go on.

Current unofficial vote count:

Clockwork Jackal (1) MadTheSwine
MadTheSwine (1) storeyteller0910
NAF1138 (1) FlyingCowOfDoom
sachertorte (2) SnakesCatLady, Pleonast
Hal Briston (2) Kyrie Eleison, zuma
zuma (1) Malacandra


This matches my list, so I won't bother to post my updated one yet.

Fretful Porpentine
06-28-2007, 09:52 AM
I'm confused. Why is this true?

--FCOD
Well, if it's the Oracle who's caught, you look for the person or people who shouted out the Oracle's name, and you've found the Apprentice (or two or three strong candidates, at the very least). If the Apprentice is caught, the name he or she shouted out is the name of the Oracle.

I'm inclined to think that the Apprentice can almost certainly find a subtler way to identify himself or herself to the Oracle under the cover of normal game chatter, so I'm not totally on board with this plan -- but will go along with it if there's general agreement that this is what we should do.

Scuba_Ben
06-28-2007, 09:56 AM
I disagree -- given that the Oracle knows who he or she is, nobody else knows who the Oracle is, and the Oracle can investigate people when the scum can't, I can think of a few ways the Apprentice could make this work.Not correct -- the Apprentice knows who the Oracle is. That was part of sachertorte's point.

Similarly (and not yet discussed, IIRC) the Disciple knows the Priest, but not vice versa. There's an advantage there, if we can figure out how to use it without tipping off the scum. Which, as noted, is something of the same problem with the Apprentice.

Added on preview: Something smells in Queuing's analysis; e seems awfully weak on the dangers to the Apprentice. I'm hesitant to side with em at this point. (Maybe I should start my own list of wary, very wary, suspect, strongly suspect.)

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 10:01 AM
Hal Briston (2) - Kyrie Eleison, zuma
NAF1138 (2) - FlyingCowOfDoom, Zeriel
sachertorte (2) - SnakesCatLady, Pleonast
Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison (1) - MadTheSwine
MadTheSwine (1) - storyteller0910
Zeriel (1) - ArizonaTeach
Zuma (1) - Malacandra



[out of character]
Since I've already had my remediation earlier in the thread...
votes are in Blue
unvotes are in Red
FOS in DarkOrange

Also, isn't there a way to get a post count in-thread by clicking some button on the blue tool bar at the top of the thread? I think it was mentioned in a previous Mafia Thread.
[/ooc]

Good thing you pointed it out; I'd missed his vote. Didn't help that it was at the bottom of the page either. :eek:

Also, I think the Vote history is going to get really long, so I'll only post that for final vote counts or if otherwise requested.

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 10:03 AM
I'm inclined to think that the Apprentice can almost certainly find a subtler way to identify himself or herself to the Oracle under the cover of normal game chatter, so I'm not totally on board with this plan -- but will go along with it if there's general agreement that this is what we should do.

I would decline to participate in this plan, whether or not it is supported by
"consensus." There are likely to be a number of scum among any such consensus, who would no doubt delight in our setting up a quick and easy way for them to identify our Oracle if they can identify our Apprentice (or vice versa). I am not interested in any plan where the outing of one power role immediately and automatically leads to the outing of another, particularly not this early in the game.

For the rest, I am incredibly frustrated with the way the town is approaching this game so far. Seriously, the math of night kills? Game is on, and the few people who are taking halting steps toward trying to actually identify scum are being drowned out by the people who appear to be, in essence, trying to identify the Apprentice. I can't even follow the discussion.

I am becoming incresingly convinced that somewhere among the bloc of people who insist on pursuing this topic to our collective detriment there is at least one Cultist, absolutely delighted that we are moving toward a rushed, random, evidence-free lynch at the end of the Day. I don't know who it is, but the townies who are letting this conversation absolutely dominate the Day might want to think about taking a step back and thinking about what has actually been accomplished so far.

Zeriel
06-28-2007, 10:06 AM
He did what in the who now?
I don't see anything in his other posts, either. Ok.

The minimum contribution we can expect from everyone is a vote together with justification

Who benefits if we have people thinking it's alright to post once per GameDay, with a vote and justification? That doesn't give the townies much to go on, therefore it's ...essentially, not even worth an "official" FOS, just a mental note that it might be scummy.

Zeriel
06-28-2007, 10:15 AM
Let me just list off some names and yíall can tell me if you think they have been making their presence known. ...


Of those people, actual post counts:
17 Zeriel
12 Zuma
10 Fretful Propentine
8 MonkeyMench
5 Malacandra
5 Captain Carrot
5 Autolycus
2 Captain Klutz

People with similarly low (<=10) post counts not mentioned:
ArizonaTeach
fluiddruid
Mhaye
Clockwork Jackal + Kyrie Eleison combined
Hockey Monkey

If NAF1138 is town, this list means nothing. If NAF1138 is scum, these folks are suspect.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 10:21 AM
We all get your point sachertorte.
I accept that you understand, but I don't think you can say everyone does.
For the record, we understand your plan perfectly, as Queuing has already stated.
Again, I'm sure many do. But when I see posts like this:
See I think this is where you misinterpreted my earlier post. There IS a risk. If the Apprentice is NOT in the group that the Oracle is investigating, he has a 0% percent chance of improving his accuracy. The fact that the Apprentice CAN improve is an important nuance to his role. Even though the chance of that happening are 50%, I think that is too big of a risk to lose what could end up being two Oracles (if the Apprentice reaches 80% prior to the Oracle's death).
I see that there are people who don't fully understand what I'm trying to say. So I go for a walk to come and see this:
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it matters. The Oracle will investigate a certain number* of randomly chosen people during the game. It doesn't matter what criteria he uses to split the pool - either his investigations will include the Apprentice or they won't. I'm assuming no evidence arises during the game to suggest a possible Apprentice to the Oracle; if it does, then he should follow his hunch, of course. But otherwise the only difference is that an external observer with full knowledge could see that the Oracle was predestined to fail. He could see that anyway, if the Oracle published the entire list of investigatees at the start of the game, whether the Oracle had split the player list in half by number or by any other means.
Which makes me immensely happy. I like a little confirmation that I'm not crazy.
Basically, there are two types of risk people are trying to convince me of. Real risk, which I think is small but others think is too big, and imaginary risks which are the ones I've been trying to refute.
At this point I don't even want coordination anymore. For me (out of game) the best thing would be for there to be no coordination so that I can take a look at the results after the game.

The anser to your second question, if I'm no longer advocating a random Day 1 vote for the town. Not because I'm convinced it's a bad idea, or unimplementable, but because with so many people opposed to the idea I'm not interested in shoveling sand against the tide.
I wish I had your sensibilities.
I, for one, applaud the novel thinking and approach to the game; however, if your theory is correct, I think it is a bit game breaking. If we rely on some sort of algorithm for running what is the essence of the game, it kind of defeats the purpose of playing. Even if it is mathematically better, it won't be as entertaining.
(I see that you've already acknowledged this).

If everyone (and by everyone I mean at least 80% of the current player population) were to publish a "random vote" (with unvoting, of course), the Apprentice could hide his/her "random vote" among the noise.

With a truly random vote (by everyone else) you'd have votes flying every which way. However, the Apprentice with his/her "random" vote could actually purposefully be voting for the Oracle. The Oracle would only have to cast his/her real night-time investigation in the Apprentice's direction...

Anyway, it's just an idea.
I think its already clear that I'm one to appreciate unconventional play and exploitation of the game rules.
The flaw I see with DiggitCamara's proposal is that the process reduces the set of players from which the the scum are to find the Oracle (where have I hread that before? Echo? echo?). The voting scheme you propose will leave some players without votes, indicating to the scum that these players are not the Oracle. Furthermore there is no way to guarantee everyone gets one vote since someone voting before the Apprentice may randomly vote for the Oracle forcing the Apprentice to double up on the Oracle vote, which would be very bad and zoom in on the Oracle quite quickly.
Love the idea though.

Witness the crushing blow dealt by the Oracle in the original Werewolf game when the "wait a bit, then tell all, in a clear and unambiguous way" strategy was employed. I think, but I haven't run the numbers, that if we have five Day/Night cycles worth of data from an Oracle, that would be enough to break the Cult's back. It depends on how fast we lose Monks really.
I like this line of thinking. At some point a direct roleclaim becomes more valueable than breadcrumbs; even more valuable than the prospect of more breadcrumbs. I leave it to the Oracle to judge when that time is.

Isn't the way to discourage scum lurking simply to kill lurkers?
Someone else up thread addressed this (I think). Basically, if we have several lurkers, its too easy for scum to guide the town towards dunking a townie lurker instead of a scum lurker, and they get nice cover of 'but he was lurking.'
Unless... we randomly...
Ow! that hurt.

An absolute maximum of four kills are possible (if somehow the Avatar is burned after the Psychopath is activated, and the Crusader makes a successful kill on the same night).
I think we can safely remove the Avatar from the matrix of possiblities. An Avatar-based death will be posted by Blaster Master at the end of the day. It will be clear to us that it happened.

Second, there's a fair chance that the Apprentice could be expected to object to any division that makes it unlikely that he'll be investigated. As it happened, everyone pretty much objected, but had there been only a few objectors, they would have made a nice pool of candidates for Apprentice hunting. So I'm a little bit suspicious of sachertorte as a result.
Thank you for your clear reasoning here. This is a flaw I hadn't considered, and I feel bad that I didn't notice it. I was too wrapped up in analyzing the game mechanics and not adequately considering how other players would react to my idea. What's worse is it actually is a reason for not discussing the whole mess. Sorry. Suspicion noted; lesson learned.

I don't hate the idea of everyone picking a name and yelling it out, allowing the Oracle to find the apprentice. From a risk/reward perspective I see a much greater reward then the previous oracle/apprentice discussion.
I completely disagree with this statement, but I'm glad you made it. Watching M3, I was completely baffled by DiggitCamara's logic. His reasoning process was orthogonal to my own and it made me seriously think he was scum. Based on your view of coordination and having the apprentice announce who the Oracle is, even under cover from other townies, is in my opinion much riskier than coordination. The process would collapse the set of scum targets to find the Oracle. Very bad for town.
So how can you advocate something that isolates the possibly Oracle set yet be against something whose flaw is reducing the set from which breadcrumbs are correlated?
The good news is, now we know that the two of us just have completely different thinking processes. "Agree to disagree" and all that.
I won't vote or FOS you for this, given that I understand that I had the same kind of reaction to DiggitCamara (and I wasn't even playing that game), but I really would like other players to look at my point of view on the Apprentice covered-reveal idea. If the rest of the town thinks it's sound logic, I... just don't know what I'll do with myself.

Fretful Porpentine
06-28-2007, 10:25 AM
Not correct -- the Apprentice knows who the Oracle is. That was part of sachertorte's point.
No, I realize that. What I was trying to say is that since the Oracle knows his or her own identity, and nobody other than the Oracle and the Apprentice knows this information, it is possible for the Apprentice to signal the Oracle without tipping off scum.
Similarly (and not yet discussed, IIRC) the Disciple knows the Priest, but not vice versa. There's an advantage there, if we can figure out how to use it without tipping off the scum. Which, as noted, is something of the same problem with the Apprentice.
This is a different case, because I'm not convinced that there is any advantage to the town if the Priest knows the Disciple's identity; if I understand the rules correctly, the Priest, unlike the Oracle, can't do anything to increase the Disciple's effectiveness. The Disciple's best bet is to keep mum for as long as possible.

Captain Klutz
06-28-2007, 10:31 AM
Post #546
I agree. The major problem I have is that my mathematical, game-theorist's brain has trouble coping with the absence of information. Still, we have to start somewhere. So I'll vote zuma, not because I especially think I have anything on him but because, in the event of his turning up scum, it can be taken as a minor point in my favour that I was willing to see him dunked. (Not a huge point, admittedly, since scum will cheerfully vote for each other, especially when there's small risk of the vote actually resulting in a death. But like I say, we have to start somewhere.) (colour removed)

I'm a bit puzzled by your logic - a random(?) vote, with the usual justification that there is nothing to go on.

But then, in the next post #547, Zuma agrees?!
Good a reason as any, Mal. Day 1s suck in this game. I think there may be a reason they usually start at night. At least a few people have something to go on.

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 10:36 AM
I agree. The major problem I have is that my mathematical, game-theorist's brain has trouble coping with the absence of information. Still, we have to start somewhere. So I'll vote zuma, not because I especially think I have anything on him but because, in the event of his turning up scum, it can be taken as a minor point in my favour that I was willing to see him dunked. (Not a huge point, admittedly, since scum will cheerfully vote for each other, especially when there's small risk of the vote actually resulting in a death. But like I say, we have to start somewhere.)

Wait, what? You're voting for zuma because if he dies and is scum, people will be less likely to vote for you? How does that not apply to literally anyone else for whom you could vote?

Or, in other words: <Tim Allen puzzled noise>

Queuing
06-28-2007, 10:38 AM
Something smells in Queuing's analysis; e seems awfully weak on the dangers to the Apprentice. I'm hesitant to side with em at this point. (Maybe I should start my own list of wary, very wary, suspect, strongly suspect.)

What smells? Weak on the dangers to the Apprentice? Well I figured the dangers to the apprentice are the same as to the oracle. Plus the apprentice is a potentially almost useless character. One of the things I remember from M2 was the many arguments about the beat cop, and the usefulness of said reading. Therefore I have tentatively come to the conclusion that unless the Apprentice is found by the Oracle and trained to improve their reading skills, the apprentice is useless. What I like about the plan is that it would greatly improve the odds of this happening. What I don't like about the plan is that it would improve the odds of losing the Oracle.

One rules question; the Apprentice can be turned correct? And knows who the Oracle is? So it seems to me that the most important person to be turned would be the Apprentice as it would cost the believers all of their investigators, and with no warning potentially.

On preview: Sachertorte, notice I said if something like 20 people agreed and yelled out a name then it could be worthwhile. I also said that I thought the reward was greater, as the Apprentice being trained is a much greater reward then your plan, which was solely a loss of the very small chance of duplicate investigations. I don't see how you acknowledge that narrowing the pool of candidates down is bad in the name calling plan yet acceptable in division plan, particularly when the difference in the reward is so huge.

That being said I never thought of the whole duplicate name making it potentially easier for the cult to find the apprentice. Great point, and I reverse my prior (even in this post) position of potential support for the plan.

I instead would like to throw my support behind less math and more IDing of scum.

On 2nd preview: I too would like to make a Tim Allen noise directed at Malacandra.

SnakesCatLady
06-28-2007, 10:52 AM
People, all of this talk about the Oracle/Apprentice is doing no good. None. Zip. Nada. And it is frustrating as all get out to come in here and have to wade through it.

None of you can force the Oracle or Apprentice to follow your plans. They will do as they deem best even if every player in the game supported a plan.

What if the Apprentice had come up with a way to get the attention of the Oracle? What if one of you shouted it out for the world? Now the scum is looking for the Apprentice and you have made it easier. It is very easy for you to talk about "acceptable risk" - it's not you that is being risked! The Oracle and the Apprentice may not see the risk as being as acceptable as you do.

Please, please, please stop it. We need to be trying to figure out ways to find scum.

Captain Klutz
06-28-2007, 10:57 AM
(Note that scum and non-believers are both investigated as non believers)

Post #435
I'm honestly of the opinion that it's in the town's best interest to treat "non-believer" as "scum" unless proven otherwise. Dang, that REALLY confuses the issue with detecting the convert now that I think about it.

I agree. There is no way to distinguish between scum and non believers, so non believers will need to "take one for the team".

Post #438
Again: not so. Though the Non-Believers can win by themselves, they count against the Cultist's win condition. If we start treating them as "equal time foes", we'll be:

1. Losing votes against the Cultists
2. Giving their "special roles" (Alchemist) incentive to act against town
Not really, as I can't see any way for the non believers to work toward their own victory (they don't know each other and don't even know how many there are). If there is a non believers victory it will only happen by accident.

Post #440
IMO this is a bad idea. Killing Non-Believers is only a teeny bit better than killing Believers. Let's not forget that for the Cultists to win, their numbers must be more than Believers + Non-Believers.
Yes, it would be preferable to keep the non believers. But how the heck can they be differentiated from scum? If someone role claims non believer, do we just let them off the hook?

Pleonast
06-28-2007, 11:00 AM
I would decline to participate in this plan, whether or not it is supported by "consensus." There are likely to be a number of scum among any such consensus, who would no doubt delight in our setting up a quick and easy way for them to identify our Oracle if they can identify our Apprentice (or vice versa). I am not interested in any plan where the outing of one power role immediately and automatically leads to the outing of another, particularly not this early in the game.

For the rest, I am incredibly frustrated with the way the town is approaching this game so far. Seriously, the math of night kills? Game is on, and the few people who are taking halting steps toward trying to actually identify scum are being drowned out by the people who appear to be, in essence, trying to identify the Apprentice. I can't even follow the discussion.

I am becoming incresingly convinced that somewhere among the bloc of people who insist on pursuing this topic to our collective detriment there is at least one Cultist, absolutely delighted that we are moving toward a rushed, random, evidence-free lynch at the end of the Day. I don't know who it is, but the townies who are letting this conversation absolutely dominate the Day might want to think about taking a step back and thinking about what has actually been accomplished so far.I agree 100% with what you're saying here: these schemes to let the Apprentice reveal himself to Oracle are inherently dangerous. And I'm guessing one of the leading proponents is a Cultist (the rest being duped Townies). Really people, it does not help the Town to discuss our power roles. If our power roles follow any publicly revealed plan, it will sooner or later help the Cult find them.

But, storyteller, I haven't seen much help from you in trying to find scum. Your posts so far have been very reasonable. So clean that I find you suspicious. Tell us who you find suspect, specifically.

I agree. The major problem I have is that my mathematical, game-theorist's brain has trouble coping with the absence of information. Still, we have to start somewhere. So I'll vote zuma, not because I especially think I have anything on him but because, in the event of his turning up scum, it can be taken as a minor point in my favour that I was willing to see him dunked. (Not a huge point, admittedly, since scum will cheerfully vote for each other, especially when there's small risk of the vote actually resulting in a death. But like I say, we have to start somewhere.)You vote for zuma to make yourself look better if he turns out scum? That seems very scummy to me. It makes me suspect both of you.

I agree with Zeriel that Klutz's statement seems unhelpful. I want to see more than a vote with reasons from everyone. The minimum is higher than that.

pasta, encrypTed messages, i tHink, are against the spirit of the gamE. and probably against SDMB polIcy anywayS. enCoded messages, hOwever, should be Ok (every message just needs to have an obvious pLain-english meaning).

Here's who on my list of suspicion:
sachertorte and FlyingCow for continuing the power role discussion. There are others involved, too, but these two are the leaders.
storyteller for flying below the radar.
Malacandra for a poorly reasoned vote.

Unvote sachertorte
Vote Malacandra

I'd like to see votes from everyone by Friday, if not sooner. We'll need to build a consensus and the next step in doing that is voting.

And, responding to posts that went up while I was typing:

Thank you for your clear reasoning here. This is a flaw I hadn't considered, and I feel bad that I didn't notice it. I was too wrapped up in analyzing the game mechanics and not adequately considering how other players would react to my idea. What's worse is it actually is a reason for not discussing the whole mess. Sorry. Suspicion noted; lesson learned.This falls into "slip-up" category that I and others gave for why we shouldn't talk about Town power roles. I'm happy you're finally understanding.

I see others have noticed Mal's post.

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 11:08 AM
But, storyteller, I haven't seen much help from you in trying to find scum. Your posts so far have been very reasonable. So clean that I find you suspicious. Tell us who.

Well, the best way I have of indicating who I find most suspicious is by voting for someone.

Which I did (for MadtheSwine). And gave my reasons.

I still haven't gotten a response to my response to his response, but Mad hasn't been in much at all lately so I'm happy to wait with my vote where it is.

As for the rest:

I found Malacandra's last post hinky, for sure.

I'm going to have to read through all these power role posts more carefully before I'm comfortable speculating about the possible motives of those involved in that.

Most of the rest of the town seems an undifferentiated mass at the moment.

Finally, the game just started and Autolycus is already giving me acid reflux. I told him in the Forbidden Thread of M4 (and meant it) that I thought he had played brilliantly in M4 - starting off by aping his behavior from M2, but then moving very gradually toward more substantive posting after a Day or two. Everyone was so happy to see him posting anything besides color that no one even looked at him funny. I think he could have hidden forever as scum, had he not been night-killed. So I don't know how to handle him, if he starts off by spending a full game Day in the shadows.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 11:17 AM
Your inability to remember players statements should not be used as a reason to find them suspicious.



I was going to answer zerial (and I will later in this post), but I thought this was much more interesting.

Why not?

Here is my thinking, I have a fairly good memory and after doing a re read of the thread and then looking at the player list, those were the people that I was surprised to see were in the game.

No, not everyone is going to stand out, but would you not agree that the smartest scum strategy at the start of the game is to post just enough that the hard data proves you are posting without actually saying anything interesting enough that you get noticed?

Now, I didn't FOS them. I didn't vote for them. MAYBE I smudged them a little, but you know what...all of them got noticed. That was my goal, just get people to notice the players that seemed to be going unnoticed. Zuma, Mal, and Fretful all came back with reasonable posts (at least I think Mal did, I am not possitive about that). Zerial got all huffy and threw a OMGUS FOS and the vote on my. Why was he being so defensive?

I admited in my first post that this was not a list of lurkers per se. Then I followed it up with the post FURTHER explaining my thinking, which you called insanely scummy. Why? Are you telling me that when you looked at that list you thought to yourself "NAF you are crazy, those are some of the most anylytical high content posters we have!"

To zerial, sorry you feel so attacked. All I was doing was asking for a bit more content. Maybe you feel you were posting content, I didn't notice it but maybe you were. It really doesn't matter. That wasn't the point. The point was to make sure you were noticed. Nothing wrong with that right?

Why you so afraid of people noticing you Z?

USCDiver
06-28-2007, 11:26 AM
I accept that you understand, but I don't think you can say everyone does. Again, I'm sure many do. But when I see posts like this: [quotes me]
I see that there are people who don't fully understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm getting a little tired of your vague disparagements of my intelligence, sachertorte. From what I know of you in previous threads, I know you're probably being a numbskull because that's who you are and not because you're scum in this game. I feel that you probably have a modicum of intelligence and wouldn't be so obtuse as to out yourself so fabulously.

But as you said in Post 574 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8720244#post8720244), you haven't contributed much to actually finding scum.

So to that end, FOS at sachertorte more out of spite than anything else, but I want to see some substance in your posts that makes me think you're actually playing the game as opposed to analyzing it.

Queuing
06-28-2007, 11:30 AM
Then I followed it up with the post FURTHER explaining my thinking, which you called insanely scummy.

Snipped extensively.

Is this directed at me? If so then you mis-characterized what I said, as I never called anyone insanely scummy, because there is not enough data to even come close to a conclusion such as that. I was just putting down my list of who I might vote for. Malacandra has joined that list, him for a somewhat better reason then Pasta or you.

So my top 3 is:

Malacandra
Pleonast
Diggit Camara

Followed by:

NAF1138
Pasta.

Zeriel
06-28-2007, 11:33 AM
Actually, I was just annoyed because I HAD been posting back and forth in the big Oracle/Apprentice discussion--and I stand by my assertion that if someone posting as much as myself and a few others were on your lurker radar, and yet people who'd posted less were NOT on your lurker radar, then the question is what have you and the unmentioned lurkers have to hide?

It's a vote because it's the most vote-worthy thing I've seen so far. Don't worry, though, there's three or four other people (as previously mentioned) who could easily say something ill-considered (or nothing at all) and swing my vote to them.

Honestly, isn't it just as suspicious that you didn't notice my existence, despite my contributions and dialogs, until I started pointing at you?

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 11:37 AM
Snipped extensively.

Is this directed at me? If so then you mis-characterized what I said, as I never called anyone insanely scummy, because there is not enough data to even come close to a conclusion such as that.


You are right, sorry. I was conflating your post with a couple of others. My apologies. Also, my use of hyperbole needs to be kept in check.

Chalk it up to not enough coffee before posting and then failing to review my post.

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 11:40 AM
OK, I'm not sure I'm reading the same thing in Klutz's post that you are, Zeriel, but since not even Klutz seems to care that you smudged him there (and I find that weird, him not defending himself at all), and I think you acted in good faith and not scumminess, I unvote Zeriel. I'm also not thrilled about Klutz's "take one for the team" mentality on non-believers. That seems, to me, the kind of thing a non-believer would say to distance himself. It doesn't strike me as cult-y, though.

This Mal-zuma thing is interesting, though.

And where the HELL is Mad?

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
06-28-2007, 11:41 AM
Seriously, Pleonast. Doesn't that clip-board get heavy? You're actually expecting this rag-tag bunch to deliver a cleanly wrapped consensus on Day 1?

You were the first to vote for anyone, which when coupled with your unvote put you under scrutiny of a number of players, a situation that Diggit also found himself in shortly thereafter.

You then go on to "make an example" out of sachertorte for his persistent discussions of possible investigator strategies. That is, until you unvote him and set your sites on Malacandra.

So by boiling down the essence of your approach, you seem to have some sort of tight schedule you want us all to keep (independent of the game clock), you have a list of apparent cardinal sins that you feel inclined to try and enforce, and the only conversation you seem to be happy with or encouraging toward are conversations that end in votes, even if that means switching those votes numerous times in the first 1/3 of the day.

I find plenty of room in there for muddying the waters, discouraging discourse, and priming the pump for future manipulation.

So here's my required vote, a little early. Vote Pleonast. Can I get extra credit?

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 11:43 AM
This post, from a few pages back, keeps bugging me.


One thing I haven't seen mentioned, and I think we should, would be the night kill math. How do we interpret a night with just one kill? No kills? Three kills? How do we detect the recruitment? These are going to be key questions. I'll think about them a bit and post my thoughts later.


So at the time Mtgman makes this post, the discussion about the Oracle and the Apprentice seemed to be dying off a bit (it wound up rising from its grave and taunting us yet further, but still). So here is a chance for Mtgman to actually come in and, I don't know, analyze someone's posts, accuse someone of being scum, cast a random vote (although by that time he had disavowed random voting on account of no one wanted to do it), something.

Instead, he wants to talk about the night kill math. This bothered me the very first time I read it, and I couldn't quite articulate why. But I think I've finally figured it out. This suggestion actually is wildly anti-town - though whether maliciously so or foolishly so I'm not sure - particularly given its timing. At the moment, there have been no night kills. Why talk today about how we're going to analyze them? I think putting too much thought into trying to puzzle out the night kills is generally fruitless anyway, but even if you are the type to want to talk about it after it happens, what possible benefit is there to talking about it speculatively, now?

Well, there is benefit. Just not to the town. If we sit here and chatter for two Days about how we can analyze the night kills and how to view them from a mathematical standpoint and how we're going to interpret a given number of kills, we're going to give the Cultists some incredibly useful information about how to plan night kills that will generate the maximum possible confusion. If we outline right now and right here how we're going to try to guess when a recruitment has happened, the Prophet will be able to use that information to execute the recruitment in a way that will be as deceptive as possible.

I am not ready to unvote MtS, yet, not until he at least addresses my concerns about him. But Mtgman is currently in second place with a bullet.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 11:46 AM
Actually, I was just annoyed because I HAD been posting back and forth in the big Oracle/Apprentice discussion--and I stand by my assertion that if someone posting as much as myself and a few others were on your lurker radar, and yet people who'd posted less were NOT on your lurker radar, then the question is what have you and the unmentioned lurkers have to hide?

It's a vote because it's the most vote-worthy thing I've seen so far. Don't worry, though, there's three or four other people (as previously mentioned) who could easily say something ill-considered (or nothing at all) and swing my vote to them.

Honestly, isn't it just as suspicious that you didn't notice my existence, despite my contributions and dialogs, until I started pointing at you?


Once more with feeling:

This is not about "lurkers" (notice the quotes) or post counts. It was about drawing attention to players who I felt needed to get a bit more attention.

Why are you faling to grasp this? SCL would have been on the list, but she was being noticed for not contributing much. I am sorry you feel like you were contributing and that I missed you, but the fact is... I missed you. It isn't a personal insult. But again, I feel that the best way to find scum is to shine light into the dark corners. I just wanted to make sure you got a little attention.

Now you have gotten some attention.

Zeriel
06-28-2007, 11:53 AM
This is not about "lurkers" (notice the quotes) or post counts. It was about drawing attention to players who I felt needed to get a bit more attention.

Well, I was shining a bit more light around, then, on those poor unnoticed souls you didn't mention.

I'm not really failing to grasp this, I'm just finding it suspicious that I went "unnoticed" despite being actively in the conversation, when people who haven't posted or really much been posted about at all didn't make that cut. It's nothing personal, it's just the only thing I have to go on.

Although Pleonast, MtS, and Mtgman are all starting to look good (by which I mean evil Sekhamites) too.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 11:59 AM
OK, I'm not sure I'm reading the same thing in Klutz's post that you are, Zeriel, but since not even Klutz seems to care that you smudged him there (and I find that weird, him not defending himself at all), and I think you acted in good faith and not scumminess, I unvote Zeriel. I'm also not thrilled about Klutz's "take one for the team" mentality on non-believers. That seems, to me, the kind of thing a non-believer would say to distance himself. It doesn't strike me as cult-y, though.



:confused:
So you VOTE for Z, then unvote him a few minutes later because the person he accused isn't defending himself? You either don't have any faith in your convictions or you just let fly a major scum tell.

I am going with scum

vote ArizonaTeach

And you all thought I was crazy when I posted that list.


As far as the Mal thing goes. I can't believe that Mal would be dumb enough to make a stupid slip like that as scum. But he deserves a bop on the nose for not playing in a pro town fashion.

Bad Mal.

(ok, so the coffee has kicked in and I am feeling a bit happy, woohoooooo! :D )

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
06-28-2007, 12:00 PM
While we're talking about math (at least we were 10 minutes ago), here's my take.

I consider myself an intelligent person. I've taken a good bit of math. The problem was, I got all of my higher math out of the way as soon as I could, and finished my 3 semesters of calculus when I was about 18. That was 14 years ago. (Holy cow!) Pretty much the only thing I've retained since then is vague understanding of Gabriel's Horn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_horn) and how to draw hypercubes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube) .

I simply don't trust any math-driven suggestion or analysis posted in these games that is very complex, and most of what I have seen posted falls into that category. I honestly can't even figure out each individual poster's particular terminology or phrasing to even begin to try and interperet most of them.

I freely admit that this probably prevents me from being as good of a player as I could be. But I just want to get my perspective out there in case anyone ever finds themselves trying to convince me of anything with math. Don't bother. The rest of you can feel free to toss such ideas back and forth to your heart's content. Just know that I will continue to read them in the Peanuts "adult waawaa" voice.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 12:02 PM
Well, I was shining a bit more light around, then, on those poor unnoticed souls you didn't mention.

I'm not really failing to grasp this, I'm just finding it suspicious that I went "unnoticed" despite being actively in the conversation, when people who haven't posted or really much been posted about at all didn't make that cut.


Fair enough. More light is only a good thing. Some of those people I am a bit biased towards noticing because I have played with them before. Some of them posted strong analysis posts that resonated with me so I noticed them. But shine that light brother.

Pleonast
06-28-2007, 12:08 PM
Seriously, Pleonast. Doesn't that clip-board get heavy? You're actually expecting this rag-tag bunch to deliver a cleanly wrapped consensus on Day 1?

You were the first to vote for anyone, which when coupled with your unvote put you under scrutiny of a number of players, a situation that Diggit also found himself in shortly thereafter.

You then go on to "make an example" out of sachertorte for his persistent discussions of possible investigator strategies. That is, until you unvote him and set your sites on Malacandra.

So by boiling down the essence of your approach, you seem to have some sort of tight schedule you want us all to keep (independent of the game clock), you have a list of apparent cardinal sins that you feel inclined to try and enforce, and the only conversation you seem to be happy with or encouraging toward are conversations that end in votes, even if that means switching those votes numerous times in the first 1/3 of the day.

I find plenty of room in there for muddying the waters, discouraging discourse, and priming the pump for future manipulation.

So here's my required vote, a little early. Vote Pleonast. Can I get extra credit?(Color removed.)

Over-reaction, much? We need votes. Why does that bother you? Townies have nothing to lose by voting and changing their vote. Only scum need to second-guess and strategize how they vote.

Of course we should have a consensus. Would you rather we dunk someone who has only a handful of votes? That would be easy for the Cult to manipulate. And why should we wait to vote? I'd rather see the consensus develop over a few real-life days instead of being crammed in at the end of the Day. Rushed voting is easy to manipulate, too. (Although, I never have much free time on the weekends, so I do have an out-of-game reason to hurry it along.)

I'm not the only one who's complained about the discussion over Town power roles. Are you saying I shouldn't voice my dislike of that discussion? And if I think the discussion is scummy, why shouldn't I vote to make a point? And if I find someone else more scummy, I shouldn't vote for them?

I'm playing straight-forward--putting my votes where I think the scum is. I even made a nice list of who I suspected and reasons why. So everyone can see exactly where I stand and why. If all of the Town did that, our odds of catching an actual Cultist will improve dramatically.

As I've said before, votes aren't valuable. It's the analysis that it is. Please criticize the reasoning behind my votes, but voting freely is not a scummy trait.

As for "muddying the waters, discouraging discourse, and priming the pump for future manipulation": the only discourse I'm discouraging is that over Town power roles. I've already stated my case against that. And it sounds like you want to discourage voting, because other than that, my posts aren't that different from anyone else's.

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 12:12 PM
:confused:
So you VOTE for Z, then unvote him a few minutes later because the person he accused isn't defending himself? You either don't have any faith in your convictions or you just let fly a major scum tell.

I am going with scum

vote ArizonaTeach

And you all thought I was crazy when I posted that list.


As far as the Mal thing goes. I can't believe that Mal would be dumb enough to make a stupid slip like that as scum. But he deserves a bop on the nose for not playing in a pro town fashion.

Bad Mal.



Does anyone but me notice anything odd about this post?

Specifically, about the different ways NAF addresses what he perceives to be major scum tells?

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 12:14 PM
:confused:
So you VOTE for Z, then unvote him a few minutes later because the person he accused isn't defending himself? You either don't have any faith in your convictions or you just let fly a major scum tell.

I am going with scum

vote ArizonaTeachDo you even read the posts? Zeriel explained his vote, Klutz didn't even bother to defend himself, and I mentioned both of those as reasons why I dropped my vote. And two hours later after multiple postings by both the people I references in my original vote is not exactly minutes.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 12:15 PM
Does anyone but me notice anything odd about this post?

Specifically, about the different ways NAF addresses what he perceives to be major scum tells?

Talk to me storyteller, what are you seeing?

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 12:23 PM
Do you even read the posts? Zeriel explained his vote, Klutz didn't even bother to defend himself, and I mentioned both of those as reasons why I dropped my vote. And two hours later after multiple postings by both the people I references in my original vote is not exactly minutes.


Ok, I suppose two hours isn't really minutes. But what bugged me is that you backed off so easily. You thought you found scum, you were sure enough to place a vote and then with a single explanitory post from Z over there you decide, meh...not worth it.

Votes ain't cheep. I know people are saying that they are, but when we are in day 9 or 10 people aren't going to be looking at the context of your votes anymore, they will just be looking at the votes.

Also, what you did there reminded me a whole hell of a lot of what I was doing when I was scum in the pirates game. Maybe people who aren't me can't see that as clearly. But that was a strongly scummy move in my eyes.

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 12:25 PM
Talk to me storyteller, what are you seeing?

You're right that was way more cryptic than it needed to be. :)

My sense was that you gave considerably more leeway to Malacandra than to ArizonaTeach in your assessment of their actions. In other words, Az did something that you regard as a "major" (which I will interpret as being synonymous with "obvious;" if this is an unfair equivalence, feel free to say so) scum tell. He got your vote.

But you say that Malacandra wouldn't be dumb enough to make a "stupid" - again, read as "obvious" mistake if he were scum.

In other words, why is Malacandra's "stupid" tell so quickly dismissed while AzTeach's "major" tell earns your vote?

Am I reaching? It's possible. But it's worth putting it out there, I think.

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 12:26 PM
You know, I'm not going to get into an OMGUS here, but you are so not practicing what you preach. You voted and unvoted jackal, not because of any type of defense, but because he dropped OUT. What does that have to do with whatever you thought was scummy? Also, since when is unvoting a scum tell? Seems to me a LOT of people have done it so far. Hell, two people have done it without any type of reason and were called out for it, but I don't recall you freaking out and suddenly voting.

Or....do you think there's some sort of alliance going on between me and Zeriel, since he already voted for you and I took my vote of him? Is this some weird sort of OMGUS payback?

HazelNutCoffee
06-28-2007, 12:35 PM
Does anyone but me notice anything odd about this post?

Specifically, about the different ways NAF addresses what he perceives to be major scum tells?
That's funny, because I marked in my notes where NAF responds to my suspicions of MtS's overreaction to Clockwork Jackal (now Kyrie Eleison) by saying that it's just his gaming style. His response to Mal's scum tell seems to be along similar lines.

Dismissing scum tells based on past gaming experiences looks somewhat suspicious to me.

I need to re-read the posts made after last night before I cast a vote for anyone.

Pleonast
06-28-2007, 12:37 PM
Votes ain't cheep. I know people are saying that they are, but when we are in day 9 or 10 people aren't going to be looking at the context of your votes anymore, they will just be looking at the votes.Yes, votes are cheap! Especially on Day 1. Why wouldn't they be? There's almost no evidence to go on at this point. Players should be open to persuasion and changing their vote. That's how we'll build a consensus.

Players ignore the context of votes at their own peril. In fact, mis-interpretation of previous votes is a typical scum tactic. So always check why someone voted; don't be overly swayed by simple vote summations.

Why should Townies be reluctant to vote?

Mtgman
06-28-2007, 12:40 PM
Ok, I'm officially baffled. Can we get a quick huddle, since we all seem to be online, real quick Pleonast and storyteller0910? We're at opposite ends of the spectrum as to what should be done on Day 1 and I think we should either figure each other out or agree to disagree.

Here's my stance. This is a game of information. There is a disparity between the information posessed by both groups. But information gained by dubious means is not reliable and can, in fact, be dangerous. Establishing a type of epistemology(a formal system by which we can gain information with a good confidence level, the scientific method is an epistemology), whether it is transparent to the Cultists or not, gives us confidence in any information we do gain. The Oracle has an epistemology(called revelation) by which he/she can accurately learn information, but the rest of us don't. Using subjective things like "scum tells" or "flying under the radar" are all well and good, for individuals, but this is a cooperative game. The Cultists are a team, and the town should be too. By using transparent reasoning processes we can also spot those who are trying to buck the system. Those trying to buck the system are probably Cultists because they have reason to go against the pro-town strategy/epistemology we define, they have a different goal, and they have information already which may throw their calculus off when assimilated into a matrix of what the town knows.

Let's take the specific example of discussing the math behind Night kills. If we discuss it and the various possibilities for each post-Night state, then we narrow the avenues of investigation on the following Day. Moreover, we narrow it in a way not easily controlled by the Cultists. The rules governing Night kills are set by the moderator, and the Cultists, et. al. have to play by those rules. This is an area they can't really manipulate because the only thing they could do is forego their night kill, or a conversion, but that gives away information too. If we know the possibilities and combinations then we gain reliable information. Information is, nearly, everything in this game.

The discussion of the Apprentice and Oracle is valuable to the town because it helps establish concrete methods by which we can evaluate any breadcrumbs which may be dropped, especially by the Apprentice, and determine how reliable they are. Does anyone want a repeat of MII's Beat-Cop slaughterfest? If we could find a way, perhaps using some sort of cryptology, to convert the Apprentice into a fully-powered Oracle, that would really tilt the scales in our favor. I'm dubious about this as of now because I don't see a way to pass this information securely. I don't see how the Apprentice could encode a message with info known only to them and the Oracle. As far as I know the only data point they both share is the Oracle's name. Since there are only thirty players it would be vulnerable to a brute force attack where the Cultists try every user's name as the decryption key and the one which works, bingo, there's the Oracle. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think that is pretty risky. I think the best strategy is for the Oracle and Apprentice to stay alive as long as possible and do a big reveal after a few Day/Night cycles(after which they live only as long as the Priest can protect them). Dropping breadcrumbs, while nice, is risky too.

In case this isn't enough to jumpstart discussion between the three of us, what about the case I mentioned earlier? Should the town refrain from discussion of possible Cultist strategies in case we hit on one they haven't thought about and which would be more effective than the ones they planned to use? If not, why is that case different than discussing the possible strategies of the town's power roles?

In any event, I think you, both Pleonast and storyteller0910 are placing way too much emphasis on Day 1's dunk. Data talks, bullshit walks. Discussions are tiny bits of data buried among tons of bullshit. Voting patterns and kill patterns, those are data. I'd rather let Day 1 be a bad dunk and get some real data than dig through piles of bullshit to ferret out "scum tells" or various vibes like "not being helpful" or "under the radar". Please note, NAF, and other real-life Werewolf players, this is not how I operate in face to face games. There I'm all for heating it up on Day 1 because there are SOO many tells a person can give off when you're face to face which make it easier to spot scum. But online? Data, data, data.

Enjoy,
Steven

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 12:47 PM
You know, I'm not going to get into an OMGUS here, but you are so not practicing what you preach. You voted and unvoted jackal, not because of any type of defense, but because he dropped OUT. What does that have to do with whatever you thought was scummy? Also, since when is unvoting a scum tell? Seems to me a LOT of people have done it so far. Hell, two people have done it without any type of reason and were called out for it, but I don't recall you freaking out and suddenly voting.

Or....do you think there's some sort of alliance going on between me and Zeriel, since he already voted for you and I took my vote of him? Is this some weird sort of OMGUS payback?


It is not unvoting that is a scum tell, it is placing a vote and then backing off at the first hint of conflict. It plays into the theory that fluid postulated and that I agree with, scum will post and vote but try to stay out of the towns way. It's the best way to stay under the radar.

You are reaching like crazy with the OMGUS payback idea.

As far as Clockwork goes, I was not about to have an early vote on someone that wasn't in the game. It isn't fair to the person taking over the role. Sorry that is how I feel. It is a strike against Kyrie in my eyes, and if Clockwork had subbed out at the end of the day I might feel differently, but there are other scum out there.

Mtgman
06-28-2007, 12:47 PM
Yes, votes are cheap! Especially on Day 1. Why wouldn't they be? There's almost no evidence to go on at this point. Players should be open to persuasion and changing their vote. That's how we'll build a consensus.

Players ignore the context of votes at their own peril. In fact, mis-interpretation of previous votes is a typical scum tactic. So always check why someone voted; don't be overly swayed by simple vote summations.

Why should Townies be reluctant to vote?
Why should a townie be reluctant to vote? Because they don't want to be jumped all over by various people picking apart their stated reasons. Intellectually they may be able to understand it's just a game and we're talking strategy, but it sure feels like a conflict and conflict is not comfortable. The whole "Vote and justify it to my satisfaction or else you're scum" vibe some posters are giving off is really disconcerting. We've got a couple real life days left here. Also, experienced players really should know better than to get this hyped up over Day 1's dunk.

Enjoy,
Steven

Queuing
06-28-2007, 12:48 PM
I have to say, NAF I find this:

So you VOTE for Z, then unvote him a few minutes later because the person he accused isn't defending himself? You either don't have any faith in your convictions or you just let fly a major scum tell.

I am going with scum

vote ArizonaTeach

Very odd as well, considering both Pleonast and Diggit Camara did the samething, I called them on it, and nary a peep from you.

Combined with what Storyteller said here:

My sense was that you gave considerably more leeway to Malacandra than to ArizonaTeach in your assessment of their actions. In other words, Az did something that you regard as a "major" (which I will interpret as being synonymous with "obvious;" if this is an unfair equivalence, feel free to say so) scum tell. He got your vote.

But you say that Malacandra wouldn't be dumb enough to make a "stupid" - again, read as "obvious" mistake if he were scum.

In other words, why is Malacandra's "stupid" tell so quickly dismissed while AzTeach's "major" tell earns your vote?

Am I reaching? It's possible. But it's worth putting it out there, I think.

Bumps you backup the list. I can also see more and more why I was so hoodwinked by Storyteller in M2. I agree with to much of what he says!

However, my choice is again between the 4, with Pasta being dropped and Arizona teach potentially being added to make it 5. I will have to re-read to ensure he did what you (NAF) said he did (unless you would like to provide links).

[QUOTE=NAFVotes ain't cheep. I know people are saying that they are, but when we are in day 9 or 10 people aren't going to be looking at the context of your votes anymore, they will just be looking at the votes.[/QUOTE]

I do agree with this however, regardless of what Pleonast may say.

On preview: mtgman, what is the point of that big ol' post? Its that data is good? And you say breadcrumbing is dangerous? Maybe so, but necessary.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 12:51 PM
Yes, votes are cheap! Especially on Day 1. Why wouldn't they be? There's almost no evidence to go on at this point. Players should be open to persuasion and changing their vote. That's how we'll build a consensus.

Players ignore the context of votes at their own peril. In fact, mis-interpretation of previous votes is a typical scum tactic. So always check why someone voted; don't be overly swayed by simple vote summations.

Why should Townies be reluctant to vote?

You and I have disagreed on this point so frequently that I am tempted to ignore it as a difference in philosophy.

I just want to point out, when this game is 80 pages long the town probably will not be checking context from Day 1 clearly. This is just a fact. We need to keep the voting records clear. People shouldn't be afraid to vote, but voting for no reason is bad. It just makes things confusing later on. Don't be shortsighted about this.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
06-28-2007, 12:57 PM
(Color removed.)

Over-reaction, much? We need votes. Why does that bother you? Townies have nothing to lose by voting and changing their vote. Only scum need to second-guess and strategize how they vote.

Of course we should have a consensus. Would you rather we dunk someone who has only a handful of votes? That would be easy for the Cult to manipulate. And why should we wait to vote? I'd rather see the consensus develop over a few real-life days instead of being crammed in at the end of the Day. Rushed voting is easy to manipulate, too. (Although, I never have much free time on the weekends, so I do have an out-of-game reason to hurry it along.)

I'm not the only one who's complained about the discussion over Town power roles. Are you saying I shouldn't voice my dislike of that discussion? And if I think the discussion is scummy, why shouldn't I vote to make a point? And if I find someone else more scummy, I shouldn't vote for them?

I'm playing straight-forward--putting my votes where I think the scum is. I even made a nice list of who I suspected and reasons why. So everyone can see exactly where I stand and why. If all of the Town did that, our odds of catching an actual Cultist will improve dramatically.

As I've said before, votes aren't valuable. It's the analysis that it is. Please criticize the reasoning behind my votes, but voting freely is not a scummy trait.

As for "muddying the waters, discouraging discourse, and priming the pump for future manipulation": the only discourse I'm discouraging is that over Town power roles. I've already stated my case against that. And it sounds like you want to discourage voting, because other than that, my posts aren't that different from anyone else's.

While lacking my usual dose of smileys, my tone was intented to be light and humorous ribbing.

People will vote when they're ready to vote. It is the first Day. The worst Day for all of us to try and make good choices, especially the newbies.

And on preview, I see that Mgt and NAF have already hit on my other points (value of CAREFUL investigator theory, desire for voting history analysis that doesn't require a MySQL database, especially only on Day 1, etc ), so I will leave it at that.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 12:59 PM
You're right that was way more cryptic than it needed to be. :)

My sense was that you gave considerably more leeway to Malacandra than to ArizonaTeach in your assessment of their actions. In other words, Az did something that you regard as a "major" (which I will interpret as being synonymous with "obvious;" if this is an unfair equivalence, feel free to say so) scum tell. He got your vote.

But you say that Malacandra wouldn't be dumb enough to make a "stupid" - again, read as "obvious" mistake if he were scum.

In other words, why is Malacandra's "stupid" tell so quickly dismissed while AzTeach's "major" tell earns your vote?

Am I reaching? It's possible. But it's worth putting it out there, I think.

Sorry it took me so long to get to this one Story. The game is moving faster than I am.

I have trouble with thinking what Mal did was a scum tell, because if it was he was basically waving a flag and saying "look over here, I am scum." It just seemed so...obvious. I read his post and my initial reaction was, "wow Mal that was a major slip up."

And then I thought about it. If I was scum, would I ever ever make a post like that? No. Never. You were scum Story, would you have? I am guessing no. It is just not a thought out post. And to me that says townie more than scum. Town posts without thinking like that, scum never do.

Mtgman
06-28-2007, 01:00 PM
On preview: mtgman, what is the point of that big ol' post? Its that data is good? And you say breadcrumbing is dangerous? Maybe so, but necessary.I'm trying to resolve the differences between those who would rather talk strategy, and build analytical methods to help everyone play a strong game, versus those who are going off instinct and saying we should be searching every byte for some sort of tells. I'm arguing the side of the strategists, and putting forth the case that if we get caught up in the tactics then we'll lose the strategy. It's fighting battles but losing wars because we don't have a good idea of which battles to fight and why. I'm arguing for teamwork and a strong shared strategy. This helps us because, if it's a good strategy, we'll do well, and if someone acts contrary to the strategy it's an indication they're working towards another goal or have different information(the former would be a Cultist, the latter would be a Monk, or one of our more informed pro-town roles).

Enjoy,
Steven

Pleonast
06-28-2007, 01:01 PM
I think the best strategy is for the Oracle and Apprentice to stay alive as long as possible and do a big reveal after a few Day/Night cycles(after which they live only as long as the Priest can protect them). Dropping breadcrumbs, while nice, is risky too.I agree with this. And is why we should not discuss those roles at all. There's too much risk that one of them somehow drops a crumb that alerts the Cultists.In case this isn't enough to jumpstart discussion between the three of us, what about the case I mentioned earlier? Should the town refrain from discussion of possible Cultist strategies in case we hit on one they haven't thought about and which would be more effective than the ones they planned to use? If not, why is that case different than discussing the possible strategies of the town's power roles?I don't see anything wrong with discussing what the nighttime results or the Cult's power roles. We may get them to slip up. But we need to avoid tunnel vision and delude ourselves into thinking we can predict their tactics.In any event, I think you, both Pleonast and storyteller0910 are placing way too much emphasis on Day 1's dunk. Data talks, bullshit walks. Discussions are tiny bits of data buried among tons of bullshit. Voting patterns and kill patterns, those are data.Uh, Day 1's dunk is the matter at hand. We need to decide. Yes, there's plenty of time, but we want to avoid a rush at the end.

I see three approaches to the Town's action today:
1) Completely random dunk--no information gained, and tricky to implement anyway. Likely to be a Town kill, but could be a Cult kill.
2) No dunk at all--no information gained. No chance of a Town kill, but no chance at a Cult kill.
3) Form a consensus. Likely to be a Town kill, but could be a Cult kill. The Cult can manipulate us, but if they do, we may catch on to them. On a later Day, more likely. Voting alone doesn't help the Town that much. Talking alone doesn't help us either. We need to do both. And then on a later Day, the survivors can go back and see who voted for who. And what votes stank and what scum made mistakes.

As someone said, we're here to find Cultists, not protect Townies. Getting the Cultists (and hence everyone) to talk and vote is how we'll do that.

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 01:02 PM
It is not unvoting that is a scum tell, it is placing a vote and then backing off at the first hint of conflict. It plays into the theory that fluid postulated and that I agree with, scum will post and vote but try to stay out of the towns way. It's the best way to stay under the radar.

You are reaching like crazy with the OMGUS payback idea.

As far as Clockwork goes, I was not about to have an early vote on someone that wasn't in the game. It isn't fair to the person taking over the role. Sorry that is how I feel. It is a strike against Kyrie in my eyes, and if Clockwork had subbed out at the end of the day I might feel differently, but there are other scum out there.Oh for crying out loud. Are you seriously putting a time limit on how long it should take after people defend themselves before anyone's allowed to unvote them? Two hours and multiple posts isn't good enough? Should we wait three hours? Four? What about when it's almost time to lynch? Anyone who unvotes after a role claim without waiting the prescribed NAF waiting period is automatically suspect, even thought he ignored the same things for other players, including himself (remember, "that's just the way I play" from NAF dismisses any type of bizarre behavior, unless you say it, in that case it's a tell)! Everybody get that rule? You know, speaking of the pirates game, zuma (scum) went after me (mason) with a similar focus and similar inconsistencies in explanation and voting and got found out in the end.

Upon preview:
I read his post and my initial reaction was, "wow Mal that was a major slip up."

And then I thought about it. If I was scum, would I ever ever make a post like that?Not showing the courage of your convictions, eh?

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 01:03 PM
I have to say, NAF I find this:

Very odd as well, considering both Pleonast and Diggit Camara did the samething, I called them on it, and nary a peep from you.


I think that I have addressed the rest of your post already Queuing. As far as what you think Pleonast and Diggit did. I frankly didn't notice you calling out Diggit about that behavior. Repost it and I will tell you what I think. Pleonast has already stated that he thinks this kind of posting is best for the town. I disagree, but since it is a part of his stated strategy I can't say that I can read this sort of behavior one way or the other.

Also, the game is moving fast, I can't always support every position I come across. I think I may adopt Idle's long stream of conciousness posting style because trying to keep up this way is wearing my out, and keeping me from work.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 01:05 PM
Oh for crying out loud. Are you seriously putting a time limit on how long it should take after people defend themselves before anyone's allowed to unvote them? Two hours and multiple posts isn't good enough? Should we wait three hours? Four? What about when it's almost time to lynch? Anyone who unvotes after a role claim without waiting the prescribed NAF waiting period is automatically suspect, even thought he ignored the same things for other players, including himself (remember, "that's just the way I play" from NAF dismisses any type of bizarre behavior, unless you say it, in that case it's a tell)! Everybody get that rule? You know, speaking of the pirates game, zuma (scum) went after me (mason) with a similar focus and similar inconsistencies in explanation and voting and got found out in the end.

Upon preview:
Not showing the courage of your convictions, eh?

You are twisting my words and getting pissy. Stop it, it won't help.

HazelNutCoffee
06-28-2007, 01:12 PM
I'm trying to resolve the differences between those who would rather talk strategy, and build analytical methods to help everyone play a strong game, versus those who are going off instinct and saying we should be searching every byte for some sort of tells. I'm arguing the side of the strategists, and putting forth the case that if we get caught up in the tactics then we'll lose the strategy. It's fighting battles but losing wars because we don't have a good idea of which battles to fight and why. I'm arguing for teamwork and a strong shared strategy. This helps us because, if it's a good strategy, we'll do well, and if someone acts contrary to the strategy it's an indication they're working towards another goal or have different information(the former would be a Cultist, the latter would be a Monk, or one of our more informed pro-town roles).

Assuming that there is some kind of strategy that all of us can agree is a good one (which, judging by this thread so far, isn't likely to happen), making it so that acting contrary to the strategy means one is either scum or a power-role doesn't seem like a good idea at all. Particularly since the scum all know each other, and we don't.

Pleonast
06-28-2007, 01:17 PM
Why should a townie be reluctant to vote? Because they don't want to be jumped all over by various people picking apart their stated reasons. Intellectually they may be able to understand it's just a game and we're talking strategy, but it sure feels like a conflict and conflict is not comfortable. The whole "Vote and justify it to my satisfaction or else you're scum" vibe some posters are giving off is really disconcerting. We've got a couple real life days left here. Also, experienced players really should know better than to get this hyped up over Day 1's dunk.I guess I expect players to get over their inhibitions and just jump in. Townies have nothing to fear by being dunked. At least I don't have any fear.

Cookies, NAF, Queuing, I guess it is down to a philosophical difference. The voting record is important, but I've never liked simple summaries (of votes, smudges, posts made, etc). I think it lulls Townies into ignoring the real evidence--why votes were made vs the stated reasons. This is a social game, not a numbers game.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
06-28-2007, 01:22 PM
To HazelNut's point, I think that neither daily consensus in votes or long-term consensus in strategy will be coming out of this group any Day soon. Both are nice, utopian ideas, but not likely until this mob of our's has a few dead bodies floating around to think about. Until either (or both?) scenarious emerge as likely, I for one will try to be practicing tolerance towards whatever paths everyone takes towards better coordination.

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
06-28-2007, 01:27 PM
:smack: I forgot the tolerance part.

Unvote Pleonast. But you're stuck with my FOS Pleonast.

DiggitCamara
06-28-2007, 01:27 PM
I guess I expect players to get over their inhibitions and just jump in. Townies have nothing to fear by being dunked. At least I don't have any fear.

Cookies, NAF, Queuing, I guess it is down to a philosophical difference. The voting record is important, but I've never liked simple summaries (of votes, smudges, posts made, etc). I think it lulls Townies into ignoring the real evidence--why votes were made vs the stated reasons. This is a social game, not a numbers game.
I'll add my idea to this: to me the most important factor is different. I tend to look at scenarios and to expected (and observed) reactions of players to one scenario.

It served me well during M3.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 01:28 PM
I guess I expect players to get over their inhibitions and just jump in. Townies have nothing to fear by being dunked. At least I don't have any fear.

Cookies, NAF, Queuing, I guess it is down to a philosophical difference. The voting record is important, but I've never liked simple summaries (of votes, smudges, posts made, etc). I think it lulls Townies into ignoring the real evidence--why votes were made vs the stated reasons. This is a social game, not a numbers game.


I really want to agree with you Pleo, and in a perfect situation I think I would support your play style. But I think it ignores the realites of the game. Come day 8 or 9 when we are on page 87 people just aren't going to do a total re read. They should, but they won't. We need to keep that sort of thing in mind.

That being said, I would like to hear more of what Mtgman thinks our group strategy should be. He is slowly starting to convince me that he might be right or at least there is something in what he is saying that might be usefull. Simply playing the numbers I don't think is the way to go. But a uniform town strategy might highlight the scum better.

Scuba_Ben
06-28-2007, 01:29 PM
I'm getting worried about the current argument between NAF1138 and ArizonaTeach. The fact that they're arguing so much (and so hard, see #608) leads me to suspect that at least one of them may be scum. But I don't have enough of a read to suspect either one yet.

My reasons: Either they are on the same side and trying to convince us they're not by escalating the argument (which means they're monks or scum), or one of them knows which side the other is on (which, here on Day 1, probably means scum, small chance of Disciple or Apprentice).

Now I have to go check the other popular targets from the previous page.

Queuing
06-28-2007, 01:35 PM
I think that I have addressed the rest of your post already Queuing. As far as what you think Pleonast and Diggit did. I frankly didn't notice you calling out Diggit about that behavior. Repost it and I will tell you what I think. Pleonast has already stated that he thinks this kind of posting is best for the town. I disagree, but since it is a part of his stated strategy I can't say that I can read this sort of behavior one way or the other.

Sure, no problem. Here you go:

This is where I first mention it, but I don't name names (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8719420&postcount=268)

here I name names (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8720379&postcount=360)

I agree with Pleonast about it being a social game. I also agree with NAF about the realities of the game is that context will probably be lost. I don't agree that a unified policy needs to be agreed upon, so I disagree with mtgman.

And NAF, since I provided my posts can you now show me where you think Arizona did the same?

Scuba_Ben
06-28-2007, 01:36 PM
After further review (and going back to page 11), Malacandra in #546 has a worse-than-random reason for voting; e could have voted for anybody on the same logic of "if you turn out scum, it supports my claim for being non-scum." I'd like to see some experienced analysis of eir position.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 01:45 PM
I'm getting a little tired of your vague disparagements of my intelligence, sachertorte. From what I know of you in previous threads, I know you're probably being a numbskull because that's who you are and not because you're scum in this game. I feel that you probably have a modicum of intelligence and wouldn't be so obtuse as to out yourself so fabulously.
I think your remarks are entirely inappropriate. I haven't insulted anyone or called anyone stupid. I've called myself kinda dumb because I'm not seeing what most everyone else does. How does this insult you? I don't see where I've insulted your intelligence. I saw a flawed argument (yours), and I've pointed it out. This doesn't make you stupid. If I thought you were stupid, I'd ignore you entirely.

SnakesCatLady
06-28-2007, 01:47 PM
I hope I don't get jumped on for this, but I really don't understand how we can get a "unified town strategy" going. Even if all the townies agree to it and abide by it (whatever it is) the scum is going to sabotage it.

In the only other game of this type I have played online, I didn't always have a strong reason I could articulate as to why I thought a certain player was scum - but I was sure they were and I was right. If I have that sure a feeling again I will vote that way again. If it gets me dunked so be it.

I have stated my reason for voting for sachertorte - because he seemed likely to get the Oracle or the Apprentice exposed. Since he has backed off that course I am more likely to change my vote. When I find someone more worthy of it.

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 01:47 PM
You are twisting my words and getting pissy. Stop it, it won't help.Words twisted? No. I honestly don't see any other interpretation. My reasons for unvoting were entirely valid, and stated, and yet you said unvoting quickly is scummy. I have no idea how to look at it any other way.

Pissy? Maybe. I get that way when I'm accused.

Now I see that defending myself is giving others a vibe. Fantastic.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 01:50 PM
Sure, no problem. Here you go:

This is where I first mention it, but I don't name names (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8719420&postcount=268)

here I name names (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8720379&postcount=360)

I agree with Pleonast about it being a social game. I also agree with NAF about the realities of the game is that context will probably be lost. I don't agree that a unified policy needs to be agreed upon, so I disagree with mtgman.

And NAF, since I provided my posts can you now show me where you think Arizona did the same?


Sure thing.
vote (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724927&postcount=555) the response (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724996&postcount=564)
the unvote (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8725365&postcount=580)

That plus 2 posts by Klutz where he didn't address the issue caused AZ to unvote. It just struck me as very strange.

I think what AZ is different than what Diggit did. I think that Diggits vote was akin to my FOS of Mad. Just a start of the game joke. It shouldn't be ignored, but I don't know how daming it is.

This will be my last post for a while because I am about to head into a meeting for a few hours, then lunch.

Might be a good thing though. It was nice to be able to sit back and read the thread in a single shot yesterday. It gives you a different perspective on the events.

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 01:50 PM
Mtgman -

I'm going to try to respond to this post, but I'm going to have to do it point by point. Let' see how it goes:


Here's my stance. This is a game of information. There is a disparity between the information posessed by both groups.


Agreed.


But information gained by dubious means is not reliable and can, in fact, be dangerous. Establishing a type of epistemology(a formal system by which we can gain information with a good confidence level, the scientific method is an epistemology), whether it is transparent to the Cultists or not, gives us confidence in any information we do gain.


Sure. But you have yet to present any indication that: (1) you are in possession of such an epistemology; or (2) that one is even remotely possible to develop in a game of this kind. How can we gain information with a better confidence level than that obtained through analysis of posts? I am willing to admit that just because I can't see how it can be accomplished doesn't mean it's not possible to accomplish, but so far you haven't given us anything that I see as having practical utility. Give me an example, just one, of how we're going to obtain definitive information (beyond that supplied by deaths and/or power roles), and I'll consider your point.


The Oracle has an epistemology(called revelation) by which he/she can accurately learn information, but the rest of us don't.


True.


Using subjective things like "scum tells" or "flying under the radar" are all well and good, for individuals, but this is a cooperative game. The Cultists are a team, and the town should be too. By using transparent reasoning processes we can also spot those who are trying to buck the system. Those trying to buck the system are probably Cultists because they have reason to go against the pro-town strategy/epistemology we define, they have a different goal, and they have information already which may throw their calculus off when assimilated into a matrix of what the town knows.


Actually, in a situation like yours, the proper play for the Cultists wouldn't be to buck the system. The proper play would be to play within the system. Look, again, the only thing the Cult has to do to win the game is be sure that just one of their players survives to the end. Just one. Again, I am trying to envision a system which, if every player followed it, would guarantee victory for the town. I can't see one. Given that, if you establish some sort of hard system to which everyone agrees, the Cultists will follow loyally and pleasantly, even if a few of them die - even if all but one of them die.


Let's take the specific example of discussing the math behind Night kills. If we discuss it and the various possibilities for each post-Night state, then we narrow the avenues of investigation on the following Day.


You claim this, but how so? Near as I can tell, the discussion is this: if there is on kill, the Psychopath may have been awakened, the Crusader may have lost his/her nerve, one of the blocking roles may have blocked a kill by either the Crusader or the Cultists, the Crusader or the Cultists may have chosen not to kill, or the Cult may have recruited (or failed to recruit) a player. If there are two kills (tonight), both the Crusader and Cult successfully targeted and killed someone; if one of the kills happens to be a Cultist, we may assume that kill was effected by the Crusader. There will not be three kills toNight.

How does any of the above help narrow the avenues of investigation for tomorrow?

On the other hand, if we start speculating on what is most likely, or on what any particular outcome means, we are helping the Cultists, for two reasons: first, and most obviously, we're giving them a chance to control our reaction by their choice of whether to kill and whom to kill. This is why I hate the whole "why wouldn't the scum have killed so-and-so by now?" line of reasoning.

But second, and much more insidiously, knowing how the town as a whole is thinking gives each individual Cultist a chance to assimilate more effectively into the town. They can pick and choose when to agree and disagree with the conventional wisdom, they can plan their moves several Days ahead knowing in advance how the town will choose to interpret various outcomes. I know I used this to very good effect in M2.


This is an area they can't really manipulate because the only thing they could do is forego their night kill, or a conversion, but that gives away information too.


Can't see how.


The discussion of the Apprentice and Oracle is valuable to the town because it helps establish concrete methods by which we can evaluate any breadcrumbs which may be dropped, especially by the Apprentice, and determine how reliable they are. Does anyone want a repeat of MII's Beat-Cop slaughterfest?


Here's the thing. The Beat Cop / Apprentice is dreadfully misunderstood. The role can be played well, if the town uses the results appropriately. I don't understand what sort of "concrete methods" you are imagining for determining how reliable the Apprentice's readings are. The difference between 50% reliable and 60% reliable is utterly irrelevant for our purposes, given the small sample size with which we'll be working.


In case this isn't enough to jumpstart discussion between the three of us, what about the case I mentioned earlier? Should the town refrain from discussion of possible Cultist strategies in case we hit on one they haven't thought about and which would be more effective than the ones they planned to use? If not, why is that case different than discussing the possible strategies of the town's power roles?


The answer to this seems to me to be intuitive, and difficult to put into words, but I'll try: the scum have a very large number of strategies they could employ, and we have no way of knowing which one they will use. If we suggest strategies that they co-opt, so what? So before, we didn't know which six (or five or seven or however many Cultists there are) out of 30 possible approaches the scum would use. Now we've given them another option. So now we don't know which six out of 31 possible approaches they will use? So what?

On the other hand, discussing power role strategy entails giving the scum information they did not have before about how we will act. We want to be as mysterious to them as they are to us.


In any event, I think you, both Pleonast and storyteller0910 are placing way too much emphasis on Day 1's dunk.


You mistake me. We'll probably lynch an innocent today; I am under no illusions about that. But the way you want to play it, if we do lynch an innocent, tomorrow we'll be right back where we started. If we spend the day discussing the lynch, tomorrow, when the identity of the lynch-ee is known, the storyline we establish today will be the evidence we use tomorrow.


Data talks, bullshit walks. Discussions are tiny bits of data buried among tons of bullshit. Voting patterns and kill patterns, those are data.


I could not possible disagree more. Voting patterns and kill patterns are trivially easy to manipulate. It is much easier to make your voting pattern look "townie" then to make it through an entire game without screwing up.


I'd rather let Day 1 be a bad dunk and get some real data than dig through piles of bullshit to ferret out "scum tells" or various vibes like "not being helpful" or "under the radar".


I'd love to get some real data, too. I just don't see how anything you're suggesting will produce any.

Scuba_Ben
06-28-2007, 01:56 PM
Now I see that defending myself is giving others a vibe. Fantastic.No, the dust-up itself is giving me a vibe, but I'm not sure who it's about. In fact, sachertorte and USCDiver are starting to give me a similar concern.

And I have a similar issue as you, ArizonaTeach; when I feel something intensely I incite strong antipathy and misunderstanding in everybody. That's the other part of why I haven't even placed suspicion, never mind a vote, in this matter yet.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 02:10 PM
No, the dust-up itself is giving me a vibe, but I'm not sure who it's about. In fact, sachertorte and USCDiver are starting to give me a similar concern.
I don't understand your reasoning. Why would a dust-up be a bad thing? Don't we want to confront each other? Or is USCDiver and my tiff 'off' to you because he has made it personal?

Scuba_Ben
06-28-2007, 02:20 PM
I don't understand your reasoning. Why would a dust-up be a bad thing? Don't we want to confront each other? Or is USCDiver and my tiff 'off' to you because he has made it personal?Partly because the confrontation is the only thing I have to go on at the moment (though I'm trying to learn useful ways to read people), partly because the two confrontations are becoming personal which confuses my already low ability to get a good read, and partly because I'm very susceptible to the same trap (which, unfortunately, I don't think I've discussed on the boards until now).

As best as I understand good gameplay, we do want to confront each other. The problem is how to read the confrontations: Who's drawing attention to whom, and why? And how valid is that estimate of "why"? My sense from following M3 was that many confrontations in that game turned out to be town vs. town, but I only found that out after the fact.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 02:26 PM
pasta, encrypTed messages, i tHink, are against the spirit of the gamE. and probably against SDMB polIcy anywayS. enCoded messages, hOwever, should be Ok (every message just needs to have an obvious pLain-english meaning).
I'm going to have to agree with this. This isn't a game of superior technology and algorithms, it's a game of reading people and analyzing. While it would be neat (from an intellectual standpoint) to be passing encrypted messages, it defeats the whole point of the game, IMO.

If you can manage to pass a code in plain text ;), as is common practice for scum, and avoid getting caught, more power to you. But, regardless of whether there's a policy against it on the SDMB, I think it would break the game, so I would not allow it.

Hal Briston
06-28-2007, 02:33 PM
Ok, got my computer back, and now it's catch-up time.

Kyrie Eleison questioned Scuba_Ben about Ben's contention that "if the masons / Non-believers think they have a shot at claiming their own win, they should try for it.":Is a team win somehow lessened by having to share it with a larger team? A win is a win; why needlessly exclude anyone? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724215&postcount=531)Having developed a reputation for being an expert on the topic, I'll say this: Yes, I decided to try for the Mason-only win in M3. I probably could've locked up a town win earlier had I opted for that, but I looked at it this way -- A "win" has a value of x. I'd rather share x with two people than fifteen people.

In short, I was being a very greedy bastard. Won't try that one again, but if the non-believers look at that way, they may just decide to go for it.

And now that I get further down in Kyrie's message, I find he lays out a vote for me. Well, while it doesn't fall into the "calling non-scummy behavior scummy" that always sticks in my craw, it still should be knocked down. With regard to my posting of "So in a nutshell, the Apprentice needs to find an unobvious way to say "Yo, Oracle! Over here!" asap...."Certainly not! As nice as it would be were it possible, how smart is it to bet that one Oracle will notice this subtle message while a handful of cultists will overlook it? This suggestion is likely to get the Apprentice killed, and is easily the most suspicious thing I've seen so far The two things Kyrie fails to take into account: 1) The key word here is "unobvious". If the Oracle is smart, and the Apprentice is clever, it can be pulled off without the cultists figuring it out. Hopefully, that has already happened.

And 2), of course, is that my post was just a one-sentence summation of what many players (too many, for all this Oracle talk, IMHO) had already said. I had hoped that it would be looked at as "Yeah, that's pretty much all we can hope for from those two, so maybe we should all just STFU about it instead of creating a massive clusterfuck of useless posts that we'll have to wade through". Looks like I was wrong on that count...

Like I said, this isn't the "calling non-scummy behavior scummy" that I always look at as a terrific scum tell. Truth be told, when I made that post I wondered if anyone would blindly latch on to it. Well, suffice it to say, it wasn't a scum tell, since I'm not scum. It was simply a call to just drop the subject. Hopefully he's already thought this out a little better and unvoted -- I only have about another 100-150 messages to go through to find out...eesh!

As I go on further, I see the opposite is true. We've gone from one person with a bad idea to two. Sigh...

Oh, fuck it...the "improvements" that work made to my laptop are majorly pissing me off, so what I should probably look at as a non-issue is instead grating me as severely weak voting. I'll come back later when I'm at a more even keel for this...My apologies if any of the above winds up coming off as jerkish.

Hockey Monkey
06-28-2007, 02:35 PM
Iím doing a re-read of the thread from the start of the game, and going to post my thoughts just as I come to them. Kind of stream of consciousness. These are posts that struck me as odd, and registered a twinge on the cult-o-mometer.

Clockwork Jackal post 217 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8718926&postcount=217) When I initially read this post, it bothered me because we were only 20 posts into the game, and I found it odd that she would explicitly state that no one really seemed scummy yet (except for one little thing).

Pleonast post 221 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8718947&postcount=221) Brings up the subject of dunking/not dunking for discussion. Even though he says heís for dunking someone today, I found it a little scummy to mention it. If we donít dunk someone today, it will only benefit scum.

sachertorte post 241 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8719080&postcount=241) ďso why waste discussion on something that isn't helpful today and distracts from our real and more immediate goal.Ē Then he goes on to provide page after page of distraction from our real and immediate goal of finding Cultists.

NAF1138 post 276 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8719519&postcount=276) On re-read, this strikes me as wrong, wrong, wrong. NAF, you seriously didnít see anything wrong with the strategy of dividing up the players for the investigations? I canít see someone with your experience not thinking it through.

sachertorte post 354 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8720244&postcount=354) FOS on SnakesCatLady for making a fluffy post, but the way I see it, sachertorte has been filling up the thread just saying the same thing over and over. Paraphrasing: Hereís my idea, do what you like, if you think itís a bad idea Iíll drop it. Repeat ad nauseum.

Pleonast post 392 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8721606&postcount=392) I dunno, this post just twinged my cult-o-mometer for some reason. Seems that squishing discussion is a bad thing. I donít agree with the discussion, and quite frankly my eyes are glazing over and I am starting to skip over the Oracle/Apprentice posts altogether, but appointing yourself Captain of Discussion is scummy in my eyes.

Autolycus post 541 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724413&postcount=541) How 'bout you just play? Go on, jump in!

Malacandra post 546 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724805&postcount=546) This is the scummiest post I have read as of yet. You are voting for someone based on the logic that if they turn up scum, YOU will look better? Fact: Scum vote for scum. If Zuma turns up scum, then I am coming straight back here to you Mal.

NAF1138 post 585 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8725446&postcount=585) Huh? Wha? You wanna bop Mal on the nose for that scum tell, but vote for ArizonaTeach for making one? I donít even see what you are seeing there as far as scum tell goes.

Thatís all I have right now. One thing I know for sure is the people who look scummy this early in the game are usually townies. Sachertorte especially reminds me of capybara in the Pirates game. Iím going to go with storytellerís very sage advice of voting who you think is most scummy and right now that is Pleonast.

Vote Pleonast.

USCDiver
06-28-2007, 02:40 PM
I think your remarks are entirely inappropriate. I haven't insulted anyone or called anyone stupid. I've called myself kinda dumb because I'm not seeing what most everyone else does. How does this insult you? I don't see where I've insulted your intelligence. I saw a flawed argument (yours), and I've pointed it out. This doesn't make you stupid. If I thought you were stupid, I'd ignore you entirely.

First of all, I never said you insulted anyone or called anyone stupid. I said 'vague disparagements' and you even did the same thing in the above post calling my argument flawed when you never even addressed the point of my posts. I understand your math. I'm not talking numbers with you, I'm talking about perceived risk. My perception of the risks of your plan outweight my perception of the benefits.

And you still haven't made a post that indicates you're playing the game. Frankly this is getting out of hand and I'd like to call a truce. I concede that you are better at making mathematical analysis of gameplay if you'll concede that I'm entitled to disagree with your analysis of risk vs benefit.

On Preview, I see that our conversation is raising eyebrows. My beef is the tone of your posts towards me, which is probably more related to personality than heretic-ness. I still would like to see you turn those superior analytical abilities toward finding scum instead of organizing a strategy.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 02:40 PM
Partly because the confrontation is the only thing I have to go on at the moment (though I'm trying to learn useful ways to read people), partly because the two confrontations are becoming personal which confuses my already low ability to get a good read, and partly because I'm very susceptible to the same trap (which, unfortunately, I don't think I've discussed on the boards until now).
Okey-dokey.
From my point of view, I don't feel that I confronted or attacked USCDiver; nor do I feel I'm the one to make 'it' personal. If you disagree or if there's something you want me to address, just ask.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 02:49 PM
I understand your math. I'm not talking numbers with you, I'm talking about perceived risk. My perception of the risks of your plan outweight my perception of the benefits.
Okay. I think I get it. To me, numbers tell the whole tale -- if two things are equal, they are equal (at least in my mind). Just please understand, that if you say you understand the math, but then post conflicting math in response, I'm going to assume you misunderstood me (even if you didn't). But I will accept that your utility function is different than mine so that for you two times fifteen does not equal one times thirty. (and I don't say that to be glib or insulting or condescending. Sometimes (from a practical point of view, not mathematical) 1x100 does not equal 100x1.)

Pleonast
06-28-2007, 02:52 PM
Pleonast post 221 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8718947&postcount=221) Brings up the subject of dunking/not dunking for discussion. Even though he says heís for dunking someone today, I found it a little scummy to mention it. If we donít dunk someone today, it will only benefit scum.

Pleonast post 392 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8721606&postcount=392) I dunno, this post just twinged my cult-o-mometer for some reason. Seems that squishing discussion is a bad thing. I donít agree with the discussion, and quite frankly my eyes are glazing over and I am starting to skip over the Oracle/Apprentice posts altogether, but appointing yourself Captain of Discussion is scummy in my eyes.

Thatís all I have right now. One thing I know for sure is the people who look scummy this early in the game are usually townies. Sachertorte especially reminds me of capybara in the Pirates game. Iím going to go with storytellerís very sage advice of voting who you think is most scummy and right now that is Pleonast.

Vote Pleonast.(Color removed.)

You seem to agree with my conclusions (dunking someone, not discussing Town roles), and only disagree with how I said it. I guess I'm playing too aggressively.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 03:10 PM
sachertorte post 241 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8719080&postcount=241) ďso why waste discussion on something that isn't helpful today and distracts from our real and more immediate goal.Ē Then he goes on to provide page after page of distraction from our real and immediate goal of finding Cultists.
From my point of view, I felt that the idea was helpful today. In other words, coordination needs to happen today to be most effective.
Should I have given up earlier? Maybe. But I feel strongly that the idea is a good one (and so elegant too) so I kept with it. I still do think it's a good idea, but this is a democracy and majority rules. After that, I felt I needed to explain misconceptions about it. If someone says, "oh that's a bad idea because of X." To me, I think, if I can explain how X isn't a problem, then that person will see that coordination is a good idea. For example, the original idea was seriously flawed, but I found a way to address those flaws. This is how I solve problems.

I was wrong to think I could change people's minds, but I didn't know that at the time.

Kyrie Eleison
06-28-2007, 03:29 PM
With regard to my posting of "So in a nutshell, the Apprentice needs to find an unobvious way to say "Yo, Oracle! Over here!" asap...." The two things Kyrie fails to take into account: 1) The key word here is "unobvious". If the Oracle is smart, and the Apprentice is clever, it can be pulled off without the cultists figuring it out. Hopefully, that has already happened.

And 2), of course, is that my post was just a one-sentence summation of what many players (too many, for all this Oracle talk, IMHO) had already said. I had hoped that it would be looked at as "Yeah, that's pretty much all we can hope for from those two, so maybe we should all just STFU about it instead of creating a massive clusterfuck of useless posts that we'll have to wade through". Looks like I was wrong on that count...


It's not that I didn't notice the "unobvious" bit -- it's that I don't think unobvious is strong enough. Any such communication needs to be completely undetectable, not merely unobvious, even with knowledge regarding the identity of the Oracle, or else the Apprentice will be at risk should the Oracle perish. Similarly, it can't contain any sort of clue as to the identify of the Oracle, or he'll be in danger if the Apprentice is taken out. I don't see any way of communicating that message undetectably over a public channel, short of some sort of cryptographic protocol.

Regarding #2, you're right, I didn't read it as a summation, but, rather, as a suggestion for the Apprentice, and a dangerous one, at that.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 04:16 PM
I have received some queries about the Alchemist Role.

If the Alchemist block succeeds, it will stop Night kills (from the Psychopath and Crusader), Blessings (from the Priest and Disciple), Rituals (from the Oracle and Apprentice), and potentially the Cultist sacrifice (at a rate of the inverse of the number of cultistists entering the night). It cannot block the Avatar's revenge kill (since it is a Day kill), and it cannot prevent the Psychopath's activation (if he is blocked, and then targetted for a Night kill).

If the Oracle or Apprentice is blocked, the reading will come back as a No Reading (indistinguishable from the Apprentice after the death of the Oracle). IOW, if the Oracle is alive, they can infer that the Alchemist blocked them.

The Alchemist is NOT required to use his ability on any given night (he'll be just as happy trying to figure out how to make gold :cool: ), but he will need to let me know if he's opting out of using it prior to the Night ending.

MonkeyMensch
06-28-2007, 04:18 PM
Hi everyone!

Just to let you know I'm not flaking out, I'm here! I'm at post #300 or so. Back in a bit.

Great stuff so far...

FlyingCowOfDoom
06-28-2007, 04:22 PM
Just popping in to say that I'm getting increasingly suspicious of Autolycus. He's posted a bunch of times today (6 since his last post in this thread) and yet he still has nothing to say. How about some thoughts, Auto? We don't need them to be encased in any accent...

--FCOD

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 04:35 PM
My thoughts on Malacandra and the zuma vote:
I realize now that I've got quite a ways to go to be able to objectively read posts. I think I let my warm feelings towards Malacandra color my reading of Mal's vote for zuma:
I agree. The major problem I have is that my mathematical, game-theorist's brain has trouble coping with the absence of information. Still, we have to start somewhere. So I'll vote zuma, not because I especially think I have anything on him but because, in the event of his turning up scum, it can be taken as a minor point in my favour that I was willing to see him dunked. (Not a huge point, admittedly, since scum will cheerfully vote for each other, especially when there's small risk of the vote actually resulting in a death. But like I say, we have to start somewhere.)
(color removed)

Instead of just parroting what others have said before I'll try and state something new. On one side the statement looks selfish and scummy. On the other we have the opinion that such a statement is 'so scummy that no scum would even try it so it must just be a silly slip.'

I think Mafia games on SDMB are an evolving set of logics and playstyles. In early games, I can see now (only with hindsight) that such statements were invariably made by innocent townie who didn't know better. But as more games are played: 1) we should know better and 2) scum could employ such a statement to look like a careless townie. We must be measured in how we employ lessons learned from past games and be mindful that scum has learned those lessons too.

Several people have expressed suspicion of me. Several others have dismissed, or at least set aside their suspicions of me because 'scum wouldn't be so bold to draw so much attention to themselves.' Well, maybe, but maybe not. I would like those who are suspicious of me to consider that I could be scum making a ruckus just to buck the trend from previous games. Furthermore, I'd like to employ that same scrutiny to everyone. I would much rather allay people's suspicions by addressing those suspicions directly and demonstrating that all my chatter has been motivated by ideas that I truly believe to be pro-town, and an unhealthy character flaw that drives me to need to be 'right.' This is much better for me and for you than just taking on faith that 'scum wouldn't be so stupid.'

I still don't see Malacandra's post as scummy, but that's my read on it. If you think it's scummy then pursue it, and don't dismiss it just because scum wouldn't be so bold.

MonkeyMensch
06-28-2007, 04:40 PM
If I save my notes and observations until I'm caught up it'll be an uber-post that'll gloss everyone's eyes over. So i'm just gonna make a few remarks as I read knowing full well that most of them will be well-addressed in the next few pages. Please don't jump on these pro tem observations too hard.

If he continuously blesses himself, he's not.#316.

I brought up this stratagem in M2 and still think it's a good idea early on. The priest themself (ecch, non-gender) is the only person they currently know of worth saving. Later on, of course, the protection must be spread around, but for now Father: Save thyself.

Captain Carrot
06-28-2007, 04:49 PM
I thought I would have enough time to check this thread, but what with moving and all, I don't. Sorry to my fellow players, but I have to bow out of this one.

HazelNutCoffee
06-28-2007, 04:51 PM
Great googly-moogly. It took me an hour to slog through everything posted since last night and take notes accordingly.

First off, I would like to point out that non-scum lurkers give scum the opportunity to make night-kills that don't give away anything. Information can be gleaned from deaths, but not if the dead person has left nothing for the survivors to work with.

Mal's reasoning for voting for zuma, and the way zuma shrugs it off, both seem rather odd to me. People have already voiced their suspicions of Mal, but I find zuma's reaction - or lack thereof - just as strange. No protest? No poking at Mal's incredibly shaky reasoning?

Also, NAF, the way you dismissed MtS's over-reaction as "that's just his playing style" and Mal's flawed reasoning as "that's so obvious a scum-tell that it couldn't be a scum-tell," plus the way you justify certain scum tells by your own past experience as scum seems suspicious to me. It serves to confuse newer players (like myself) and seems to be steering towards expectations that scum will behave a certain way, although someone has already pointed out that even among scum, individual behavior can vary wildly. Not to mention that the scum have no set strategy at this point, since they haven't had any opportunity to convene yet.

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 04:56 PM
All right...time to catch up and then stay in the topic the rest of the day (if I can...and I certainly hope).

As an aside, I think I'm getting pretty good at identifying townies here and there, but horrible at picking out scum. I was pretty sure capy was town on day 1 of m3, and Idle when I tried to frame him, even though I had no knowlege of whether or not they were.

Pleonast: Your explanation of your vote/unvote based on mistaking Scuba and USC sounds reasonable enough.

Actually, just a minor correction...that was technically M4.


I agree. The major problem I have is that my mathematical, game-theorist's brain has trouble coping with the absence of information. Still, we have to start somewhere. So I'll vote zuma, not because I especially think I have anything on him but because, in the event of his turning up scum, it can be taken as a minor point in my favour that I was willing to see him dunked. (Not a huge point, admittedly, since scum will cheerfully vote for each other, especially when there's small risk of the vote actually resulting in a death. But like I say, we have to start somewhere.)

What the heck?! This doesn't even come from out of left field..this just comes out of thin air. Color me confused not only at your vote but your reasoning for it.

And added: I see many others have picked up on this. Just...wow. The logic there boggles.



See, now I'm torn. I still think NAF1138's purportedly anti-lurker post was scummy as all get-out, since there were at least a few non-lurkers on it. Hal Briston's post looks more and more scummy every time it's quoted. And Kyrie Eleison is nudging my radar a little, not as much as Clockwork Jackal did prior, but still enough. Finally, Captain Klutz's explanation for a good reason to mostly lurk just gives me a bad vibe.

Ahhhh..feels so good to be back to the start of order of things. More of these type posts, please.

I was getting a lot of meter trips from Clockwork so that carried on to Kyrie understandably being as it's her replacement. So I'm keeping an eye there too.

As for NAF, I honestly don't know what to think yet. I think him being scum would be a very dangerous thing though because he's so posty and analytical. That goes for anyone of that nature, however, including myself. How easy would it be for someone like that to be one of the most prolific posters in the topic?

The heat on Hal puzzles me, on the other hand. Sure pro-scum MIGHT be able to see a hidden code from Apprentice to Oracle, but it could be something as simple as just quoting a post and agreeing with them. I've learned, if anything, in this game that you can't underestimate how smart or sneaky people can be.

And I have no reads, good or bad, on Captain Klutz at all.

One person I do have a strong read on is Pasta, who I'm still looking at :dubious:


I agree. There is no way to distinguish between scum and non believers, so non believers will need to "take one for the team".

Snipped.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Alchemist a non-believer? But doesn't s/he also have the power to possibly HELP against the cultists? From what I read of the role, s/he can block things...which includes kills made by scum...?

:confused:
So you VOTE for Z, then unvote him a few minutes later because the person he accused isn't defending himself? You either don't have any faith in your convictions or you just let fly a major scum tell.

I am going with scum

vote ArizonaTeach

And you all thought I was crazy when I posted that list.



Boy, you're all over the place, aren't you? You strike me as someone who has a huge secret but can't seem to sit on it well and are straining at the seams to reveal it.

I'm getting worried about the current argument between NAF1138 and ArizonaTeach. The fact that they're arguing so much (and so hard, see #608) leads me to suspect that at least one of them may be scum. But I don't have enough of a read to suspect either one yet.

My reasons: Either they are on the same side and trying to convince us they're not by escalating the argument (which means they're monks or scum), or one of them knows which side the other is on (which, here on Day 1, probably means scum, small chance of Disciple or Apprentice).

Now I have to go check the other popular targets from the previous page.

Boy, you have it easy then, don't you? :p Me, I'm worried about all of the seeming major differences in a opinion this game has right now. Seems at least four or five separate ones. And to a player like me, who always feels the need to analyze everything, it gets me paranoid.




So...to sum up. What do I have and think so far? Well Pasta and Mal are the people who I'm most suspicious of right now. Pasta a bit more, based on that whole "willing to kill off people who aren't posting" reply. And Mal for that completely "WTF" vote on zuma?

NAF is all over the place and hitting on a lot of things. Trying hard not to leave an easy trail to follow? Plus, as others have pointed out, you're being slightly inconsistant again with your voting and thoughts, voting for some (like AZteach) yet giving Mal the benifet of the doubt, seemingly, in the same post.

So many fights and major disagreements going on. How many are real? How many are staged? How many are real for one half but staged for the other? We have NAF and AZteach, USCDiver and sachertorte, Pleonast and just about everyone. If this is any hint to how the rest of the game will go, this is going to be mind draining.

But in any case, other than NAF, none of the above have pinged my meter HEAVILY.

I say heavily because Pleonast has had some with his whole jr hosting thing he seems to have been doing earlier and sachertorte based on all the eagerness to juice as much info as possible about the Apprentice and Oracle. Both are starting to fade, though.

That being said, Clockwork tripped my meter some early on and the new-in Kyrie hasn't done much to help, but hasn't worsened it any either.

And finally, (and this isn't a suspicion just something I found amusing) the whole way that zuma was like "Thank you sir, may I have another!" to [/b]Mal[/b]'s voting for him made me chuckle.


Anyway, in the end, Pasta wins out with my vote for now, for our whole exchange last night and the reasons stated a few times by me.

Vote Pasta

Which reminds me now of how hungry I am.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 05:00 PM
It occurs to me that I should state why I don't read Malacandra's verbiage as scummy. To me the statements look more like stream of consciousness rambling than anything else. Plus the explicit statement that scum would do the same thing kind of neutralizes the effect of the whole paragraph. Kind of a blah blah blah, oh yeah, silly me, scum would do that too.
Essentially, it looks like a random vote.

sachertorte
06-28-2007, 05:18 PM
Why am I getting all the heat for the Oracle/Apprentice discussion? Sure I started the discussion with a theory. A theory that goes nowhere near identifying who the Oracle or Apprentice are. People argue that indirectly it does and that's fine, I accept the criticism even though I don't fully agree with it. Why no suspicions of the people who were suggesting that the Apprentice random vote for the Oracle? This explicitly reveals roles which I think is much much worse than a secret, communication-less coordination strategy.

I did not advocate for the Apprentice to vote for, or FOS, or do anything to identify the Oracle. I argued against it. Some people argued that my plan is just as bad (or worse) than an obfuscated but public record of the Apprentice pointing out the Oracle; but I don't follow that logic at all. I'm trying to let it all go, but if I'm going to be held to the fire because of what I said, then those that advocated the Oracle finds the Apprentice plan should be as well. Why has no one pointed to these people as detrimental to the town?

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 05:20 PM
Why am I getting all the heat for the Oracle/Apprentice discussion? Sure I started the discussion with a theory. A theory that goes nowhere near identifying who the Oracle or Apprentice are. People argue that indirectly it does and that's fine, I accept the criticism even though I don't fully agree with it. Why no suspicions of the people who were suggesting that the Apprentice random vote for the Oracle? This explicitly reveals roles which I think is much much worse than a secret, communication-less coordination strategy.

I did not advocate for the Apprentice to vote for, or FOS, or do anything to identify the Oracle. I argued against it. Some people argued that my plan is just as bad (or worse) than an obfuscated but public record of the Apprentice pointing out the Oracle; but I don't follow that logic at all. I'm trying to let it all go, but if I'm going to be held to the fire because of what I said, then those that advocated the Oracle finds the Apprentice plan should be as well. Why has no one pointed to these people as detrimental to the town?

Well, again, you're not high on my personal list at all. You're fading. I guess it was just that, at the time, you seemed to be the main person who was just kinda drawing everyone else into the discussion because of your questions and theories and ideas and stuff. Since then, though, it's eased off. I can only speak for myself, of course.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 05:21 PM
I thought I would have enough time to check this thread, but what with moving and all, I don't. Sorry to my fellow players, but I have to bow out of this one.

I'll send out PMs to the sub list. I'll let you all know as soon as I find one.

Sorry to see you go. Even I didn't realize the monster I had created. ;)

HazelNutCoffee
06-28-2007, 05:26 PM
It occurs to me that I should state why I don't read Malacandra's verbiage as scummy. To me the statements look more like stream of consciousness rambling than anything else. Plus the explicit statement that scum would do the same thing kind of neutralizes the effect of the whole paragraph. Kind of a blah blah blah, oh yeah, silly me, scum would do that too.
Essentially, it looks like a random vote.
Seriously? You don't think it's possible that someone who is scum would disguise their vote in terms of "yeah, I know scum would do that too, but whatever"?

Idle Thoughts, you obviously have a different read on zuma's reaction than I do, because I was thinking that zuma's reaction was a bit too subdued. Granted, it could be a philosophical shrug to what looks like a random vote, but Mal's reasoning was so ridiculous I was surprised that zuma didn't even take a stab at it. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Idle Thought's voting for Pasta reminded me what I found so suspicious about Pasta - the call for lurker power-roles to gradually surface so they wouldn't draw attention, rather than surfacing suddenly (if they are lurking at all). It seems like an attempt to trace potential power-roles among the lurkers by coaxing them into a particular pattern of behavior.

Ack, I have to go to work! I won't be able to post much until tomorrow morning, so here's my initial vote:

Vote MadTheSwine.

I am going to stick with my first suspicions, although I am still waiting for Mad to come in and explain himself. In the meantime I need to think a bit on my other doubts concerning the posters mentioned above.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 05:38 PM
A little under 3 days to go. Currently 13 total votes:

Hal Briston (2) - Kyrie Eleison, zuma
MadTheSwine (2) - storyteller0910, HazelNutCoffee
NAF1138 (2) - FlyingCowOfDoom, Zeriel
ArizonaTeach (1) - NAF1138
Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison (1) - MadTheSwine
Malacandra (1) - Pleonast
Pasta (1) - Idle Thoughts
Pleonast (1) - Hockey Monkey
sachertorte (1) - SnakesCatLady
Zuma (1) - Malacandra

Mtgman
06-28-2007, 06:17 PM
Assuming that there is some kind of strategy that all of us can agree is a good one (which, judging by this thread so far, isn't likely to happen), making it so that acting contrary to the strategy means one is either scum or a power-role doesn't seem like a good idea at all. Particularly since the scum all know each other, and we don't.
This is a good point, but the strategy would be structured so that pro-town roles don't stand out, and anti-town roles do. How exactly needs more defining, but I think it's possible, especially in a game of this size. We've had the germs of one throughout the various games we've played on the SDMB. Some components of it are the lying low and then telling all behavior of the investigative roles(compare and contrast the back-breaking effect of the Oracle in Werewolf versus the high-profile(and rapidly dead) Detective in MII). The Beat Cop sowed tons of confusion in MII, and almost certainly lead to two townie deaths directly(unintentionally, but still directly). Since our Apprentice is essentially a beat cop, until either the Oracle finds him/her or the Oracle dies, the Apprentice should hang tight and try not to give themselves away, even moreso than the Oracle. Similarly, the Crusader should not reveal himself/herself if possible, and the town shouldn't try to micromanage the Crusader without having a reliable read on who the Crusader should wack and why(such as an Oracle saying X is Cult). One of the fundamental truths of large Mafia games is that the scum can't win in a reasonable amount of time(which is essential when working against detectives) without help from the town. They can't reduce the town's numbers fast enough unless they can sway lynches(subtly, but still, it's a necessary part of scum strategy if they hope to reduce the townies to a manageable level before the detective fingers them all). So if we can define a general strategy for the town then someone trying to steer the votes towards a lynch without a strong case behind it would stand out. Basically the town agrees not to move without strong evidence. We resist the bandwagon effect because that allows a charismatic, or persuasive, Cultist to guide the dunks.

These are just germs of ideas, and I would need help to develop them, but I think there can be a uniting strategy. Any such strategy would almost certainly need to incorporate the above elements. If we want to discuss more specifics, here is a couple suggestions.

Firstly, don't be afraid of a no dunk. Especially in the information-free early game. We'll almost certainly take down a townie because there are enough scum right now to subtly guide dunk bandwagons. The first Days are big ones for the scum because they have a huge advantage. But, in a game with information roles, they can't race without the town's help. If the town doesn't dunk, then we're only down one(maybe two, depending on how the Crusader plays) person at the end of the first day/night cycle. This puts pretty much all our eggs in the Oracle/Apprentice basket, but somehow it seems more civilized. Let the cops find the scum and then let society take them out. If the scum find the cops first, then we revert to lawlessness, but it doesn't have to be our first resort.

With potentially two Oracles, this game is a double threat to the Cult. Imagine if the Apprentice roleclaimed now, and the Priest started protecting him/her and the Disciple starts protecting the Priest, since he/she knows who the Priest is. The Monks all claim, reducing the number pool of investigation targets for the Apprentice. Then the town votes no dunk and the Crusader skips his night kill. The Oracle could investigate the claimed Apprentice night 1, and then on Day 2 we've got a 60% confidence level in what the Apprentice pronounces(and of course the Apprentice simply says "Name - Pro-Town" or "Name - Anti-Town", but we still don't dunk. Night 2 the Crusader is due to kill, with 100% certainty. The protective roles won't block this kill because they're protecting the Apprentice and/or Priest. So the Crusader kills the person fingered by the Apprentice(if they're a Non-Believer) or whoever they feel is the most scummy, if the Apprentice uncovered town. But basically what we're doing is buying time for the Oracle to train the Apprentice and then break the Cult slowly with deliberate investigation versus mob mentality. We'd have probably six full days worth of time for the investigations if we don't dunk and the Crusader sticks to an every-other-night schedule. This is more than enough time for our investigators to find enough names to break the Cult's back.

Day 1 - No Dunk

Night 1 - Town goes to 22(if there are seven Cultists) or 21(if there are eight) a 2.5/22 or 2.5/23 chance of losing either the Oracle, Priest, or Disciple(the .5 is because the Disciple is protecting the Priest and his protection may fail). Crusader doesn't kill.

Day 2 - No Dunk - Town gets a name/affiliation pair from the Apprentice. 20/28(or 20 minus number of Monks / 28 - number of Monks if they Monks are willing to go along) are the odds that we get a pro-town name, and we've got 60% certainty on it.

Night 2 - Town goes to 21, 20 or 19(depending on how many cultists and if the Crusader hit town or Cult) 5/20 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it, because there are two kills and the Crusader could hit any of them too. Crusader can't risk doubling up on the protected Apprentice because that would negate their protection.

Day 3 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair from the Apprentice. 18/26 chance of being town, 70% certainty. No dunk.

Night 3 - Town goes to 20, 19 or 18. 2.5/19 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it.

Day 4 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair. 17/25 chance of being town, 80% certainty. No dunk.

Night 4 - Town goes to 18, 17, or 16. 5/18 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it.

Day 5 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair. 16/25 chance of being town, 80% certainty. No dunk.

Night 5 - Town goes to 17, 16, or 15. 2.5/16 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it.

Day 6 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair. 16/25 chance of being town, 80% certainty.

Now the Apprentice has investigated five times, with 60, 70, 80, 80, and 80% accuracy. Plus he/she knows who the Oracle is. If the Monks jump in and deflect potential investigations away from their fellow Monks, then assuming nearly worst case scenario where the Crusader has killed town every time and we've never found Cult with an investigation, we now have Monks + four nights of Oracle results + the Apprentice's investigations. That's probably about sixteen players, out of the twenty-three which would be alive on Day 6 under this scenario, that we know the orientation of with reasonable confidence(four monks, four Oracle results, the Apprentice(who knows the Oracle and can validate his/her claim) and the five Apprentice investigations. That should be enough to make a Cult win impossible. If we find Cult along the way(and we probably will) then we can eliminate them via the Crusader. That's roughly twice as many known, and trustable, pro-town people as there might be Cultists left. From there we just have to find the Prophet, who can't be investigated sucessfully, and possibly the convert. Worst case scenario at that point, start dunking non-Monks(since they can't be converted, they're trustworthy the whole way through.

So by minimizing the number of non-Cult kills we can reduce the chances of the Oracle and Apprentice being collateral damage.

The obvious way to respond to this for the Cult is to pretend to be the Apprentice and string us along while killing everyone at night, but if there is a way to pass encrypted data between the Apprentice and the Oracle, then this doesn't work. Second best response would be for them to kill Monks, making the end game more difficult because we'll have a bunch of trusted townies with a Prophet(and probably a convert) hiding among them, reading as "Believer", but even that would be two Cultists among 16 townies, and those are long odds for the Cult.

There are lots of ways this could be deviated from, of course. Still, we're humans and that's another word for adaptable. If we lost the Oracle early we'd need to continue it for a couple more Days(at that point our Apprentice becomes an Oracle, or near enough) to get an overwhelming number of confirmed Town. Losing the Priest would hurt, having him/her protected by the Disciple should help some. If we find Non-Believers with the boosted Apprentice we could let the Crusader take them out, so we're less likely to take out the Oracle, Priest, or Disciple with the pro-town night kill. Make the Cultists work for the power role kills.

And now that I've written all this I'm worried about my participation in this game. I'm a puzzle solver by nature and I'm not sure I can turn that part of me off to play the game versus try to solve it. The "use an algorithm" approach I mentioned a couple pages back I think would work well mathematically for the town, but it would kill the fun, and Blaster Master might never forgive me if I "broke" his game. The approach I just laid out would be more interactive and still have some strategic depth, but not nearly as much. On top of it all, I'm pretty sure I owe SnakesCatLady a dose of headache medicine by now.You claim this, but how so? Near as I can tell, the discussion is this: if there is on kill, the Psychopath may have been awakened, the Crusader may have lost his/her nerve, one of the blocking roles may have blocked a kill by either the Crusader or the Cultists, the Crusader or the Cultists may have chosen not to kill, or the Cult may have recruited (or failed to recruit) a player. If there are two kills (tonight), both the Crusader and Cult successfully targeted and killed someone; if one of the kills happens to be a Cultist, we may assume that kill was effected by the Crusader. There will not be three kills toNight.

How does any of the above help narrow the avenues of investigation for tomorrow?

On the other hand, if we start speculating on what is most likely, or on what any particular outcome means, we are helping the Cultists, for two reasons: first, and most obviously, we're giving them a chance to control our reaction by their choice of whether to kill and whom to kill. This is why I hate the whole "why wouldn't the scum have killed so-and-so by now?" line of reasoning.

But second, and much more insidiously, knowing how the town as a whole is thinking gives each individual Cultist a chance to assimilate more effectively into the town. They can pick and choose when to agree and disagree with the conventional wisdom, they can plan their moves several Days ahead knowing in advance how the town will choose to interpret various outcomes. I know I used this to very good effect in M2.My first plan, using a transparent algorithm to generate random votes, would have negated the ability of the scum to manipulate their votes. So no one is ever "trusted" no matter how well they assimilate. Anyone can end up in the dunking chair, on any day. Monks can claim their way out of it, as can the Priest and Oracle(and whichever one ends revealed had better be the Priest's target for protection for a while). I'm not arguing for this plan because it's no fun, but it would almost certainly work. As for our epistemology, I never said we should try to do it without the assistance of power roles. They're critical to our success. We should have a way to help them, like I mention at the beginning of this post. Let them lie low and do their jobs. Don't allow bandwagons because that's how Cultists end up helping with dunking townies.

Enjoy,
Steven

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 06:23 PM
Also, NAF, the way you dismissed MtS's over-reaction as "that's just his playing style" and Mal's flawed reasoning as "that's so obvious a scum-tell that it couldn't be a scum-tell," plus the way you justify certain scum tells by your own past experience as scum seems suspicious to me. It serves to confuse newer players (like myself) and seems to be steering towards expectations that scum will behave a certain way, although someone has already pointed out that even among scum, individual behavior can vary wildly. Not to mention that the scum have no set strategy at this point, since they haven't had any opportunity to convene yet.

Ok here is my thinking on this. It sucks for you, and people like you, that I am drawing on past experience. You don't have the shorthand knowledge that I and some of the other players have. If things like this come up, and you are confused, let me know and I will explain.

But I am playing this game to win, and if you know someoneís play style and what it looks like, why try and reinvent the wheel? I don't know that anyone who played in the pirates game can look at the way Mad posted and say that they really thought it was scummy coming from him. It is just how he plays. Why think there is a scum tell there when you can eliminate one.

Does this put him in my trusted list? No. Of course not. But I think there are bigger fish to fry.

Same goes with Mal. Maybe it is a bit wine in front of me logic, but I can not imagine ever saying something like when I was scum. A basic rule of thumb, the scum are at least as smart as the rest of us. And since I have experience as scum, why reinvent the wheel. If it is obvious to you reading it, it would be obvious to them typing it. Does it make me certain that he is town? No, it was a stupid thing to say and he might be scum who was just being stupid, but I think there are people who are more suspicious.

This isn't a black and white situation, and if we start looking at it like it is we are lost. But we can prioritize. And frankly I think that they fall lower on the priority scale than, for example, AZTeach who's behavior I think SCREAMS scum trying to blend in.

I also have experience as a game mod, and at some point I am sure that will come up. I am not going to hide my experience, it only helps me find scum. If you want me to further explain myself, feel free. If you don't like my conclusions, don't vote with me. But don't tell me to intentionally ignore information I have gained in the past.

As far as scum behaving a certain way, this is psychology. People will behave in certain patterns under certain conditions. Even if they try to hid it, they will still give themselves away. This is even more true because the scum haven't had a chance to talk yet.

Mtgman
06-28-2007, 06:29 PM
And now I see Blaster Master has ruled on the whole encryption thing. So that kind of shoots a lot of the big post I just made in the foot. Nothing stops the Apprentice from claiming, but we can't be sure it's the real Apprentice until it's probably too late.

Enjoy,
Steven

Malacandra
06-28-2007, 06:44 PM
It's all wine-in-front-of-me logic at this stage. There is zero information to base a vote on and things will stay that way until a few people start dying or power roles start getting outed or people like the Oracle and Apprentice start reporting. On Day One we are all making bricks without straw. It's not possible to tell whether I've dropped a scum tell or if the tell is so obvious it must confirm my innocence because no scum would be so stupid, or if it's a cunning double-bluff because of the preceding point, or it's really dumb because it's trying to pass itself off as a cunning double-bluff which no-one would ever buy, or it's really subtle because no-one would ever think they could get away with a cunning double-bluff like that, or...

Let me know when I reach the bottom-most turtle.

For now, all we can do is pick some poor sap to be a buoyancy test subject on Day One and leave behind a record that will allow other players to assemble a dossier later in the game. It's an obvious limitation that the voting pattern of really good scum will be indistinguishable from a true townie, but we still all have to start somewhere. And really, would a scum player advance the very flaws in his own argument even as he posts it? Well, obviously yes, because it's a cunning bluff... and off down the stack of turtles we go again.

Sorry. It'll probably be quite a while before I become comprehensible, but that's how I am in zero-information situations.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 06:53 PM
And now I see Blaster Master has ruled on the whole encryption thing. So that kind of shoots a lot of the big post I just made in the foot. Nothing stops the Apprentice from claiming, but we can't be sure it's the real Apprentice until it's probably too late.

Enjoy,
Steven

Sorry to ruin your fun. :p

Believe you me, I like the mathematical analysis as much as anyone else, but we have to remember this is supposed to be a social game and, at least the iterations we've been running, don't allow private messaging. The only concrete difference between a private message and an encrypted post is that you know a message was sent in the latter and obviously a private message is breaking the game because the Apprentice could just go "hey, investigate me!"

Similarly, I'm perfectly okay with random methods like random.org being used because it's not palpably different than flipping a coin, rolling a die, throwing a dart, etc. IMO, what makes the game enjoyable isn't the analytical/mathematical side, or the intuitive/psychological side, but a merger of the two.

However, if you're still interested in breaking the game ;), I'll gladly join with you after the game is over. Since, obviously based on the paper's strategy, no one said that breaking it still had to be fun to play, right?

Hal Briston
06-28-2007, 07:00 PM
(and of course the Apprentice simply says "Name - Pro-Town" or "Name - Anti-Town...That's where it falls apart for me. If we're going to count non-believers as allies, then the Oracle will be able to say "Anti-Town" for exactly one role -- the Avatar. All other scum come up as "non-believer" (or "Believer", in the case of the Prophet).

The only way this would give us anything to go on would be if we were to drown all non-believers, but as been said, that gives a win-condition benefit to the scum.

HazelNutCoffee
06-28-2007, 07:01 PM
NAF, I never told you to "intentionally ignore information" you've gained in the past. I was simply stating that justifying certain things simply with "this is how it's been before" looks somewhat suspicious. I also think that assuming someone's playing style will remain consistent can be dangerous - and in this case, experience can create a blind spot.

It makes sense, IMO, for scum to try and justify certain decisions they make by citing their experience as seasoned players. I am not saying that should discourage experienced townies from citing their own experiences, but simply stating that it's not unreasonable for newer townie players to take it with a grain of salt, at least in the beginning stages of the game.

Thank you for your extended explanations. That's what I was hoping to get from you. :)

Kyrie Eleison
06-28-2007, 07:08 PM
Why am I getting all the heat for the Oracle/Apprentice discussion?
I think part of it is that you're posting frequently, and are very outspoken. It's unfortunate, but those who post more often garner more attention, and give people more opportunities to find things suspicious, legitimate or not. That's why lurkers pose a problem; they remain at the default probability of being scum, while almost everyone else trends downward, or becomes confirmed somehow.

It's also possible that you're over-estimating the amount of heat you're getting. Maybe it's just me, but I find it easy to become too personally involved, which definitely makes it hard to gauge things objectively.

NAF1138
06-28-2007, 07:08 PM
NAF, I never told you to "intentionally ignore information" you've gained in the past. I was simply stating that justifying certain things simply with "this is how it's been before" looks somewhat suspicious. I also think that assuming someone's playing style will remain consistent can be dangerous - and in this case, experience can create a blind spot.

It makes sense, IMO, for scum to try and justify certain decisions they make by citing their experience as seasoned players. I am not saying that should discourage experienced townies from citing their own experiences, but simply stating that it's not unreasonable for newer townie players to take it with a grain of salt, at least in the beginning stages of the game.

Thank you for your extended explanations. That's what I was hoping to get from you. :)


No problem, glad I could help! :D

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 07:26 PM
I'll send out PMs to the sub list. I'll let you all know as soon as I find one.

Sorry to see you go. Even I didn't realize the monster I had created. ;)Be sure to find one for Hal Briston, too, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8726805&postcount=1) as he won't be playing much longer.

storyteller0910
06-28-2007, 07:27 PM
In order to keep from doing the same thing I am complaining about others doing, this will be my last post on this subject. Beyond this, Mtgman, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

This is a good point, but the strategy would be structured so that pro-town roles don't stand out, and anti-town roles do. How exactly needs more defining, but I think it's possible, especially in a game of this size.


You still have no convinced me that this is possible. You haven't even kind of suggested a way that it is.


We've had the germs of one throughout the various games we've played on the SDMB. Some components of it are the lying low and then telling all behavior of the investigative roles(compare and contrast the back-breaking effect of the Oracle in Werewolf versus the high-profile(and rapidly dead) Detective in MII).


Well, except the Detective in M2 wasn't high profile at all. She was rapidly dead, sure, but no one knew she was the Detective until after she was gone. I think a pro-town player (the Vigilante) was her actual killer that Night, which was our second night. In M4, events forced several of the power roles to declare very early, and they used their roles about as effectively as I can imagine given that. So I stand unconvinced that any single approach is the most effective in every circumstance.


The Beat Cop sowed tons of confusion in MII, and almost certainly lead to two townie deaths directly(unintentionally, but still directly). Since our Apprentice is essentially a beat cop, until either the Oracle finds him/her or the Oracle dies, the Apprentice should hang tight and try not to give themselves away, even moreso than the Oracle. Similarly, the Crusader should not reveal himself/herself if possible, and the town shouldn't try to micromanage the Crusader without having a reliable read on who the Crusader should wack and why(such as an Oracle saying X is Cult).


Yes. Which is why we shouldn't discuss these roles during the Day. It is entirely possible that either the Oracle or the Apprentice has already said or done something that will flag him or her to the scum as part of the discussion you've been helping to continue. If that's the case, all the power role strategery in the world won't help. Think about it this way: if you were scum, on balance, wouldn't you sort of be glad to see the town babbling about the Apprentice, such that he or she might give him- or herself away by his/her participation (or nonparticipation)?


One of the fundamental truths of large Mafia games is that the scum can't win in a reasonable amount of time(which is essential when working against detectives) without help from the town.


It's not essential to win quickly if you are the bad guys, even in a large game with detectives, because you have a player who is immune to the power of the Detective. If that player - the Prophet in this game - lasts to the end, no amount of futzing around or strategizing by the Oracle or Apprentice will find him or her. Not ever. So they don't have to steer the lynch. They don't have to do anything at all as long as the Prophet never comes under the gun. And they have a recruitment power to go with it all, which can swing the game right back into uncertainty if the Oracle / Apprentice declare too early.


So if we can define a general strategy for the town then someone trying to steer the votes towards a lynch without a strong case behind it would stand out. Basically the town agrees not to move without strong evidence.


This should go without saying. No one disagrees with this. Someone trying to steer the votes toward a lynch without evidence should be the suspect of suspicion no matter what "strategy" the town is employing. Unfortunately, it is not hard to generate seemingly persuasive evidence of scumminess.


Firstly, don't be afraid of a no dunk. Especially in the information-free early game. We'll almost certainly take down a townie because there are enough scum right now to subtly guide dunk bandwagons.


Ugh. Disagree completely. We're likely to take down a townie just because of the simple numbers of the thing, but this is not such a bad thing. We should be killing every day. There is no reason not to.


The first Days are big ones for the scum because they have a huge advantage. But, in a game with information roles, they can't race without the town's help. If the town doesn't dunk, then we're only down one(maybe two, depending on how the Crusader plays) person at the end of the first day/night cycle. This puts pretty much all our eggs in the Oracle/Apprentice basket, but somehow it seems more civilized. Let the cops find the scum and then let society take them out. If the scum find the cops first, then we revert to lawlessness, but it doesn't have to be our first resort.


This is frankly bizarre. There are two night-kill roles right now, plus a third that could be activated at any time. I'd love for the Oracle and Apprentice to both survive until Day 6 and deliver enough information to completely turn the tide. It's also not certain or even likely.


With potentially two Oracles, this game is a double threat to the Cult. Imagine if the Apprentice roleclaimed now, and the Priest started protecting him/her and the Disciple starts protecting the Priest, since he/she knows who the Priest is. The Monks all claim, reducing the number pool of investigation targets for the Apprentice. Then the town votes no dunk and the Crusader skips his night kill. The Oracle could investigate the claimed Apprentice night 1, and then on Day 2 we've got a 60% confidence level in what the Apprentice pronounces(and of course the Apprentice simply says "Name - Pro-Town" or "Name - Anti-Town", but we still don't dunk. Night 2 the Crusader is due to kill, with 100% certainty. The protective roles won't block this kill because they're protecting the Apprentice and/or Priest. So the Crusader kills the person fingered by the Apprentice(if they're a Non-Believer) or whoever they feel is the most scummy, if the Apprentice uncovered town. But basically what we're doing is buying time for the Oracle to train the Apprentice and then break the Cult slowly with deliberate investigation versus mob mentality. We'd have probably six full days worth of time for the investigations if we don't dunk and the Crusader sticks to an every-other-night schedule. This is more than enough time for our investigators to find enough names to break the Cult's back.


There are so many problems with this plan that I can scarcely name them all. First: there will never be enough names to break the Cult's back as long as the Prophet is in the game. If nothing else, the town will need to have some evidence with which to identify this player (unless we get spectacularly lucky and he is slain by the Crusader, although under your plan, with the Crusader shooting for the Apprentice's target (if the Apprentice finds a nonbeliever) or "whoever he/she thinks is scummy" (and don't ask me how the Crusader is supposed to make this determination, seeing as we're not lynching anyone and therefore generating no evidence of any kind during the Day).

Meanwhile, all those players declaring, to narrow the field for the Apprentice, also narrows the field for the Cult. Hypothesize six Cultists, five Masons, one declared Apprentice. That leaves a field of 18. If the town used your plan, the Cult would target one of those 18, and so would the Crusader, as (s)he would have no choice come Night 2. That's an 11% chance of hitting at least one of the undeclared and unprotected power roles. This chance will continue increasing as the pool of living players shrinks. If someone makes an attempt on the Psychopath, now there are three killers going every night. If the Cult attempts a kill and fails, they will have identified the Priest. Hypothesize EIGHT Cultists, as you do below, and the Cult's chances of killing one of the more valuable power roles increases exponentially. One unlucky night kill and everything falls to hell, and we're sitting here with no evidence because we haven't been talking about the game at all!

AND the Apprentice's readings are of dubious value. You risk having the Oracle killed having identified only two or three players (he/she would have to use one Night to probe the Apprentice, after all, and one Cultist false claiming Apprentice would blow this all to hell, as well, because even if the Apprentice counterclaims, we'd have to lynch one of them to prove the truth, and if we guess wrong, we're hosed), leaving us with three or four readings from the Apprentice, of which only one or so has any kind of probitive value.


That's probably about sixteen players, out of the twenty-three which would be alive on Day 6 under this scenario, that we know the orientation of with reasonable confidence(four monks, four Oracle results, the Apprentice(who knows the Oracle and can validate his/her claim) and the five Apprentice investigations.


Again, assuming: (1) the Oracle isn't night-killed along the way; (2) we haven't mis-identified nonbelievers as Cultists and killed them instead of the actual enemy; (3) the Apprentice investigations are anything like believable (and they're not; none of them are probitive and the first few as likely to clear a Cultist or hang an innocent as the reverse). Which are horrible assumptions on which to base our entire game.


So by minimizing the number of non-Cult kills we can reduce the chances of the Oracle and Apprentice being collateral damage.


From the perspective of reducing the chances of the Oracle being collateral damage, having the monks and the Apprentice role claim Day 1 has exactly the same effect as lynching a comparable number of townies and keeping the power roles secret.


but even that would be two Cultists among 16 townies, and those are long odds for the Cult.


Not really. 14 townies vs. two Cultists will be 8 townies vs. two Cultists in no time at all, if the scum play smart and hide effectively.

Hockey Monkey
06-28-2007, 07:31 PM
This is a good point, but the strategy would be structured so that pro-town roles don't stand out, and anti-town roles do. How exactly needs more defining, but I think it's possible, especially in a game of this size. We've had the germs of one throughout the various games we've played on the SDMB. Some components of it are the lying low and then telling all behavior of the investigative roles(compare and contrast the back-breaking effect of the Oracle in Werewolf versus the high-profile(and rapidly dead) Detective in MII). The Beat Cop sowed tons of confusion in MII, and almost certainly lead to two townie deaths directly(unintentionally, but still directly). Since our Apprentice is essentially a beat cop, until either the Oracle finds him/her or the Oracle dies, the Apprentice should hang tight and try not to give themselves away, even moreso than the Oracle. Similarly, the Crusader should not reveal himself/herself if possible, and the town shouldn't try to micromanage the Crusader without having a reliable read on who the Crusader should wack and why(such as an Oracle saying X is Cult). One of the fundamental truths of large Mafia games is that the scum can't win in a reasonable amount of time(which is essential when working against detectives) without help from the town. They can't reduce the town's numbers fast enough unless they can sway lynches(subtly, but still, it's a necessary part of scum strategy if they hope to reduce the townies to a manageable level before the detective fingers them all). So if we can define a general strategy for the town then someone trying to steer the votes towards a lynch without a strong case behind it would stand out. Basically the town agrees not to move without strong evidence. We resist the bandwagon effect because that allows a charismatic, or persuasive, Cultist to guide the dunks.

These are just germs of ideas, and I would need help to develop them, but I think there can be a uniting strategy. Any such strategy would almost certainly need to incorporate the above elements. If we want to discuss more specifics, here is a couple suggestions.

Firstly, don't be afraid of a no dunk. Especially in the information-free early game. We'll almost certainly take down a townie because there are enough scum right now to subtly guide dunk bandwagons. The first Days are big ones for the scum because they have a huge advantage. But, in a game with information roles, they can't race without the town's help. If the town doesn't dunk, then we're only down one(maybe two, depending on how the Crusader plays) person at the end of the first day/night cycle. This puts pretty much all our eggs in the Oracle/Apprentice basket, but somehow it seems more civilized. Let the cops find the scum and then let society take them out. If the scum find the cops first, then we revert to lawlessness, but it doesn't have to be our first resort.

With potentially two Oracles, this game is a double threat to the Cult. Imagine if the Apprentice roleclaimed now, and the Priest started protecting him/her and the Disciple starts protecting the Priest, since he/she knows who the Priest is. The Monks all claim, reducing the number pool of investigation targets for the Apprentice. Then the town votes no dunk and the Crusader skips his night kill. The Oracle could investigate the claimed Apprentice night 1, and then on Day 2 we've got a 60% confidence level in what the Apprentice pronounces(and of course the Apprentice simply says "Name - Pro-Town" or "Name - Anti-Town", but we still don't dunk. Night 2 the Crusader is due to kill, with 100% certainty. The protective roles won't block this kill because they're protecting the Apprentice and/or Priest. So the Crusader kills the person fingered by the Apprentice(if they're a Non-Believer) or whoever they feel is the most scummy, if the Apprentice uncovered town. But basically what we're doing is buying time for the Oracle to train the Apprentice and then break the Cult slowly with deliberate investigation versus mob mentality. We'd have probably six full days worth of time for the investigations if we don't dunk and the Crusader sticks to an every-other-night schedule. This is more than enough time for our investigators to find enough names to break the Cult's back.

Day 1 - No Dunk

Night 1 - Town goes to 22(if there are seven Cultists) or 21(if there are eight) a 2.5/22 or 2.5/23 chance of losing either the Oracle, Priest, or Disciple(the .5 is because the Disciple is protecting the Priest and his protection may fail). Crusader doesn't kill.

Day 2 - No Dunk - Town gets a name/affiliation pair from the Apprentice. 20/28(or 20 minus number of Monks / 28 - number of Monks if they Monks are willing to go along) are the odds that we get a pro-town name, and we've got 60% certainty on it.

Night 2 - Town goes to 21, 20 or 19(depending on how many cultists and if the Crusader hit town or Cult) 5/20 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it, because there are two kills and the Crusader could hit any of them too. Crusader can't risk doubling up on the protected Apprentice because that would negate their protection.

Day 3 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair from the Apprentice. 18/26 chance of being town, 70% certainty. No dunk.

Night 3 - Town goes to 20, 19 or 18. 2.5/19 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it.

Day 4 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair. 17/25 chance of being town, 80% certainty. No dunk.

Night 4 - Town goes to 18, 17, or 16. 5/18 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it.

Day 5 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair. 16/25 chance of being town, 80% certainty. No dunk.

Night 5 - Town goes to 17, 16, or 15. 2.5/16 chance the Priest, Disciple, or Oracle bites it.

Day 6 - Town gets another Name - affiliation pair. 16/25 chance of being town, 80% certainty.

Now the Apprentice has investigated five times, with 60, 70, 80, 80, and 80% accuracy. Plus he/she knows who the Oracle is. If the Monks jump in and deflect potential investigations away from their fellow Monks, then assuming nearly worst case scenario where the Crusader has killed town every time and we've never found Cult with an investigation, we now have Monks + four nights of Oracle results + the Apprentice's investigations. That's probably about sixteen players, out of the twenty-three which would be alive on Day 6 under this scenario, that we know the orientation of with reasonable confidence(four monks, four Oracle results, the Apprentice(who knows the Oracle and can validate his/her claim) and the five Apprentice investigations. That should be enough to make a Cult win impossible. If we find Cult along the way(and we probably will) then we can eliminate them via the Crusader. That's roughly twice as many known, and trustable, pro-town people as there might be Cultists left. From there we just have to find the Prophet, who can't be investigated sucessfully, and possibly the convert. Worst case scenario at that point, start dunking non-Monks(since they can't be converted, they're trustworthy the whole way through.

So by minimizing the number of non-Cult kills we can reduce the chances of the Oracle and Apprentice being collateral damage.

The obvious way to respond to this for the Cult is to pretend to be the Apprentice and string us along while killing everyone at night, but if there is a way to pass encrypted data between the Apprentice and the Oracle, then this doesn't work. Second best response would be for them to kill Monks, making the end game more difficult because we'll have a bunch of trusted townies with a Prophet(and probably a convert) hiding among them, reading as "Believer", but even that would be two Cultists among 16 townies, and those are long odds for the Cult.

There are lots of ways this could be deviated from, of course. Still, we're humans and that's another word for adaptable. If we lost the Oracle early we'd need to continue it for a couple more Days(at that point our Apprentice becomes an Oracle, or near enough) to get an overwhelming number of confirmed Town. Losing the Priest would hurt, having him/her protected by the Disciple should help some. If we find Non-Believers with the boosted Apprentice we could let the Crusader take them out, so we're less likely to take out the Oracle, Priest, or Disciple with the pro-town night kill. Make the Cultists work for the power role kills.

And now that I've written all this I'm worried about my participation in this game. I'm a puzzle solver by nature and I'm not sure I can turn that part of me off to play the game versus try to solve it. The "use an algorithm" approach I mentioned a couple pages back I think would work well mathematically for the town, but it would kill the fun, and Blaster Master might never forgive me if I "broke" his game. The approach I just laid out would be more interactive and still have some strategic depth, but not nearly as much. On top of it all, I'm pretty sure I owe SnakesCatLady a dose of headache medicine by now.My first plan, using a transparent algorithm to generate random votes, would have negated the ability of the scum to manipulate their votes. So no one is ever "trusted" no matter how well they assimilate. Anyone can end up in the dunking chair, on any day. Monks can claim their way out of it, as can the Priest and Oracle(and whichever one ends revealed had better be the Priest's target for protection for a while). I'm not arguing for this plan because it's no fun, but it would almost certainly work. As for our epistemology, I never said we should try to do it without the assistance of power roles. They're critical to our success. We should have a way to help them, like I mention at the beginning of this post. Let them lie low and do their jobs. Don't allow bandwagons because that's how Cultists end up helping with dunking townies.

Enjoy,
Steven

First of all: Ugh, that made my head hurt.

Second: That's no fun! Sitting back and letting a couple of people do all the work isn't in the spirit of the game.

Third: I think there are other roles that you have forgotten that can screw with the whole scenario, namely the Alchemist and the Psychopath. If the Alchemist inadvertantly blocks the Oracle or Apprentice, your plan gets all screwed up. Or if the Crusader or Cultists activate the Psychopath, same thing.

Fourth: The Oracle or Apprentice (or Nairu forbid) both could have already given themselves away in the kerfluffle of discussion surrounding them. If so, and the Cultists have a bead on them already, then the whole plan is moot.

Lastly: I don't think voting No-Dunk is good for the town. There are no voting records or associations to examine later in the endgame.

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 07:51 PM
Idle Thoughts, you obviously have a different read on zuma's reaction than I do, because I was thinking that zuma's reaction was a bit too subdued. Granted, it could be a philosophical shrug to what looks like a random vote, but Mal's reasoning was so ridiculous I was surprised that zuma didn't even take a stab at it. I'm not sure what to make of that.

I dunno...I can certainly understand someone seeing zuma's reaction as shady, but then again, I've seen a lot of people think that retaliary votes are just as scummy. I'm just more of the mindset that zuma's reaction was, at least, a bit more typical than the vote was that preceeded it. That was just out there and is the thing that came up on my radar.

Idle Thought's voting for Pasta reminded me what I found so suspicious about Pasta - the call for lurker power-roles to gradually surface so they wouldn't draw attention, rather than surfacing suddenly (if they are lurking at all).

See, that's half of what got me. It wasn't even what you're saying, but just the certainty that they're lurking at all. Just because someone isn't posting doesn't mean they're lurking. There's a huge difference there. I was saying (and still do, and always will) if someone isn't posting that much, I'd rather they sub out rather than use that as an excuse to vote for them. She seemed to automatically think that people who weren't posting were "lurking" and trying to stay off the radar, and thus was all for killing them off (her own words, which I quote).

So I don't know.....just reeks in a lot of ways to me.

Mtgman, you seem, also, like you're one who posts a lot (a lot more than is needed because you like to look at things from all possible angles) and who thus would be a pretty dangerous evil player if you were/are. So far you haven't set off any of MY alarms but there are a few things I read in your post here that I take exception to.

So if we can define a general strategy for the town then someone trying to steer the votes towards a lynch without a strong case behind it would stand out. Basically the town agrees not to move without strong evidence. We resist the bandwagon effect because that allows a charismatic, or persuasive, Cultist to guide the dunks.

See, this makes sense and is, at least, trying to figure out a way to possible make things work, but I seem to recall you were ready, at first, to use random.org to make your vote or point FOSs at people?

Firstly, don't be afraid of a no dunk. Especially in the information-free early game. We'll almost certainly take down a townie because there are enough scum right now to subtly guide dunk bandwagons. The first Days are big ones for the scum because they have a huge advantage. But, in a game with information roles, they can't race without the town's help. If the town doesn't dunk, then we're only down one(maybe two, depending on how the Crusader plays) person at the end of the first day/night cycle.

Snipped.

So, if I read you right, you're saying that not voting at all for the first Day is something that should be considered? I never got why this made sense to people. The scum have ONE huge advantage..and that is they know who is who and can pick off players at their whim each Night. That means that those people who are for the good...and I mean REALLY for the good and not just acting like it...really needs to take the chances to get rid of one of their ranks when they can.
That is what this game is about and, really, you of all people should know this. I dunno if it's just a difference of viewpoint or what but to me, this game is about risks and going with your gut. But to hold back and not vote at all the first day just seems to me to be giving up the right to possibly find someone who is scummy.

And I read over your next paragraph and it still puzzles me. You seem to be okay with the idea of getting all of the roles out in the open and while I DO somewhat understand your reasoning, I still think (personally) it's just too risky. The game is based, putting it bluntly, on bullshit. Bullshitting the other team and, if need be, lying and saying and doing anything you can in order for your team to win. And frankly I wouldn't put it passed scum to do just that, so all it would take was a counter role-claim to confuse all the rest for a Day while cultists starting picking everyone off at Night.

So no, I just don't and can't see your sense behind letting TWO FULL DAYS go by without dunking anyone. We have the chance NOW, we should take it. If someone is unsure or is scared of a bandwagon, fine, then everyone should vote for people in no danger of being on a bandwagon. That way, in the end, those who do help sway votes or add to vote counts that go to death could very possibly be scum trying to make a minor difference.

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 07:58 PM
Geez, hockey, didja really need to quote the whole post? Haha.

Hockey Monkey
06-28-2007, 08:12 PM
Geez, hockey, didja really need to quote the whole post? Haha.

After all that reading, I was too tired to snip it! :p

MonkeyMensch
06-28-2007, 08:14 PM
Ah. That was a nice read. Only a page and a quarter, once I had set the filters for no posts shown with "Oracle or Apprentice or probability". :)

I knew at the start that I would be late in starting to post, but it seemed really likely that the First Day would run the full 120 hours. And it looks like it's going to.

I vote sachertorte , for the nonce. It's because of the Big Scheme (which shall go nameless here) proposed earlier. If there's one thing I learned in M2 it's that the Beat Cops' (Apprentice) single night's Investigations (Ritual) were not worth much. We can hope that the Oracle finds the Apprentice but it's not worth getting panties bunched.

mtgman gets the FOS for the similar reason of a big plan implemented early on that could help the Cultists.

Pasta
06-28-2007, 08:19 PM
Wow! A busy day at work really sets you back in the thread. I'll review today's happenings and post my own first vote next, but I first wanted to respond to this:

...reminded me what I found so suspicious about Pasta - the call for lurker power-roles to gradually surface so they wouldn't draw attention, rather than surfacing suddenly (if they are lurking at all). It seems like an attempt to trace potential power-roles among the lurkers by coaxing them into a particular pattern of behavior.

I had quite the opposite intention! I never thought the lurkers-are-suspicious arguments would get flak (although it's only Idle Thought who disagrees, as far as I can tell.) In my expectation that lurkers were indeed going to get put under the microscope do the NAF's (and subsequently my) pressuring them, I mentioned that power roles might want to not be under that microscope. The quality of that advice notwithstanding, imagine that I left it there? Would you not have said, "Look at Pasta trying to figure out who lurking power roles are by getting them to suddenly start posting!" Wouldn't a sudden poster raise suspicion? Fearing that a newbie power player might give themselves away like that, I threw in the "don't show up all at once" bit to make it harder for scum to identify power roles who agreed with me and wanted to come out of lurkdom. In retrospect, I figure any words involving "power role" will look scummy, but the clause that tripped your meter was put there entirely because I didn't want any lurker/poster transistions to be obvious to scum.

Regarding lurking:
(1) Some scum will do it.
(2) Townies who do it are easy scum targets because they leave no paper trail (I believe HazelNutCoffee pointed this out), so they're not useful to town (given that we have a chance of off'ing a townie anyway.)
(3) Lurking townies who aren't targetted by scum are going to remain blank pages, and I won't be the first to say that identifying townies is way more useful to town than identifying scum, so having them be quiet is no good for town.
(4) Subbing them out is probably a neutral action (no gain/no loss), but killing them is too unless there are many scum doing it. (If there aren't extra scum, it's a wash. That's my whole point. Again, the quality of the point can be debated.)
(5) A couple of lurkers are undoubtedly just busy with real life and haven't had time to post. I appreciate that, and I'm sorry that they aren't getting to enjoy the game. But, I don't owe them anything. I'm here to win this thing for the town.

Idle Thoughts, I'm obviously not planning to go guns-a-blazin' into the crowd of wallflowers, but I'm certainly going to keep my eye out. And as I've mentioned several times, I don't suspect the absent lurkers, the ones who just haven't been able to join. It's the pseudo-lurkers (I was calling them "soft" posters) who are clearly present but aren't contributing (read: aren't sticking their necks out for the good of the town).

There's plenty of meat in the thread to discuss now, so I plan to move away from the lurking topic. Certaintly the points of view are out there, and folks can churn over them if they wish. I don't think anyone else has voiced Idle Thoughts position on the matter, but there have been many who have expressed suspicion of the below-the-radar players. (The fact that others have shared my opinion makes your vote for me, Idle Thoughts, look a bit revenge-y.) If my fellow Nairu followers think I'm off base, do let me know.

Now, time to read some posts. My suspect list will follow.

MonkeyMensch
06-28-2007, 08:24 PM
And on non-preview I agree, though no trust should be implied ;), with Hockey Monkey and Idle Thoughts (and other players earlier) with no-dunks being a bad idea. Dunks equal information, however dearly obtained. The mis-dunks just have to be sucked up and then soldier on from there.

Just stating my position...

MonkeyMensch
06-28-2007, 08:33 PM
... (5) A couple of lurkers are undoubtedly just busy with real life and haven't had time to post. I appreciate that, and I'm sorry that they aren't getting to enjoy the game. ...

I'm enjoying the game, but my reading and posting will come in bursts.That's the way like is. But I know I can get always get meaningful posts and discussions in during five, or so, IRL days.

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 08:49 PM
Call me superstitious but I can no longer stare at the reply number of 666. :p

Pasta
06-28-2007, 08:59 PM
Miscellany:

ArizonaTeach's unvote in 580 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8725365&postcount=580) also struck me as a little odd (just a little, though.)

I've never gotten any vibe other than "likes strategy games" from sachertorte. Also, I just noticed in 566 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8725041&postcount=566) that he pointed out something (re: lurking) that I missed before:
if we have several lurkers, its too easy for scum to guide the town towards dunking a townie lurker instead of a scum lurker, and they get nice cover of 'but he was lurking.'This is a point I had not appreciated, and I do grant it. (I won't be voting for a lurker at the end of this post anyway.)

Malacandra's weird vote in 546 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724805&postcount=546) also strikes me as, well, weird, as it did others.

Captain Klutz post in 536 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724265&postcount=536) said:
Yes, I haven't posted much yet, mainly because I haven't got much useful to contribute. The minimum contribution we can expect from everyone is a vote together with justification - anyone who fails to vote, or who gives unconvincing reasons, is worthy of a strong FOS.This is the sort of below-the-radar thing that makes me suspicious.

Queuing is on my watch list, but my notes don't include posts numbers for him, so I'll have to go back.

And, finally, I vote Idle Thoughts for the reasons listed below.

Having watched prior games and moderated one of my own (on another board), I knew that some scum (not all, but some) might write posts which seemed to eat their own tails, so to speak... posts which looked like they were trying hard to draw pro-town conclusions, but which never seemed to... get there. Anyway, Idle Thoughts's first(?) big post gave me this (admittedly vague) feeling: 292 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8719654&postcount=292). I'll admit I get the feeling a bit less upon rereading it.

There's also some deflection of attribution of claims. The above post had that. Here's a good example, from 483 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8723065&postcount=483):
And lastly, the only other one who has been brought to my attention is Pleonast by way of storyteller. But granded, he's the lowest of them all.The vibe I get from these sorts of statements is: "Hey, vote for this guy, but remember that I didn't say it!" (Perhaps it's just being nice and giving credit where credit's due. Perhaps it's scum trying not to have his own history that can be tracked.)

Finally, there's the adamant lurker defending. Maybe he's just defending his honest position aggressively -- not a bad thing for town to do -- but if he were scum and there were many scum targets laying low, his defense would make much more sense to me. Of course, others are free to ignore this observation if they buy into his arguments fully.

I still haven't caught up on today's actions, so my apologies for not having yet engaged in the newer topics of discussion. I hope to remedy that... now.

Queuing
06-28-2007, 09:13 PM
Ugh mtgman, that was a long post. I still disagree with you. I don't see how any comprehensive strategy can be put together when their is a random number of people who are not even trying to play nice. The other thing is:

Is it even possible to not dunk?

I hope not. Regardless I think we kill everyday. Information is gained by the blood of others.

That is about all I have to say about that.

Why am I getting all the heat for the Oracle/Apprentice discussion? Sure I started the discussion with a theory. A theory that goes nowhere near identifying who the Oracle or Apprentice are. People argue that indirectly it does and that's fine, I accept the criticism even though I don't fully agree with it. Why no suspicions of the people who were suggesting that the Apprentice random vote for the Oracle? This explicitly reveals roles which I think is much much worse than a secret, communication-less coordination strategy.

I did not advocate for the Apprentice to vote for, or FOS, or do anything to identify the Oracle. I argued against it. Some people argued that my plan is just as bad (or worse) than an obfuscated but public record of the Apprentice pointing out the Oracle; but I don't follow that logic at all. I'm trying to let it all go, but if I'm going to be held to the fire because of what I said, then those that advocated the Oracle finds the Apprentice plan should be as well. Why has no one pointed to these people as detrimental to the town?

A couple things about this post.

1. Try harder to let it go
2. Complaining about other's not taking the same 'heat' as you is not helpful, particularly when the reason is they actually shut-up about their idea when it was shown to be flawed.
3. Try harder to let it go

Finally I believe I am ready to cast my vote. I am doing this because:

I WILL NOT BE HERE FROM FRIDAY EVENING UNTIL TUESDAY MORNING. Just so you all know :).

Dunk DiggitCamara.

I do this for 2 reasons;

- his vote for cookie and then unvote very quickly all done due to "tradition" that isn't even a tradition (2 out of 4 does not a tradition make)

-it was he who posted the 2nd Oracle/Apprentice plan. While he has not kept on about this plan, like a couple other people, I seem to recall that this idea was thrown out there once the discussion of the other plan had seemed to die off. This cause further plan discussion, including the divide and conquer plan rearing its head again. I admit I was caught up in this discussion again, as were other people. IMO I believe it is time to STFU about great plans to solve this game once and for all. It ain't going to happen. We have had 2 plans proposed both shown to be severely flawd, and a mammoth post or 2 from someone who also loves the idea of a cohesive plan.

ON PREVIEW: I await your questions Pasta, or your reasons at least.

Captain Klutz
06-28-2007, 09:28 PM
OK, I'm not sure I'm reading the same thing in Klutz's post that you are, Zeriel, but since not even Klutz seems to care that you smudged him there (and I find that weird, him not defending himself at all), and I think you acted in good faith and not scumminess, I unvote Zeriel. I'm also not thrilled about Klutz's "take one for the team" mentality on non-believers. That seems, to me, the kind of thing a non-believer would say to distance himself. It doesn't strike me as cult-y, though.
(colour removed)
Yes, I thought Zeriel's take on my post was a bit odd, but since you had called him on it I didn't feel the need to respond.

As for "take one for the team", I repeat that it would be preferable to keep non believers alive. It's just that they cannot be confirmed and scum can safely claim to be non believers.

And another thing in favour of lynching - one of the non believers is a budding Psychopath.

Pasta
06-28-2007, 09:32 PM
Well, it looks like I didn't miss too much after all, mostly proposals for and declinations of Big Schemes.

If we could do a no-dunk, I'd be against it unless there was a good reason for it. Dunking provides information. We need information.

Queuing, I couldn't find anything too suspicious on a quick re-read. (The top of 551 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724887&postcount=551), maybe, but I'm kind of filtering the oracle/apprentice stuff at this point.) I'll de-watchlist you, but.. I'm watching: :p

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 10:12 PM
Regarding lurking:
(1) Some scum will do it.
(2) Townies who do it are easy scum targets because they leave no paper trail (I believe HazelNutCoffee pointed this out), so they're not useful to town (given that we have a chance of off'ing a townie anyway.)
(3) Lurking townies who aren't targetted by scum are going to remain blank pages, and I won't be the first to say that identifying townies is way more useful to town than identifying scum, so having them be quiet is no good for town.
(4) Subbing them out is probably a neutral action (no gain/no loss), but killing them is too unless there are many scum doing it. (If there aren't extra scum, it's a wash. That's my whole point. Again, the quality of the point can be debated.)
(5) A couple of lurkers are undoubtedly just busy with real life and haven't had time to post. I appreciate that, and I'm sorry that they aren't getting to enjoy the game. But, I don't owe them anything. I'm here to win this thing for the town.

Idle Thoughts, I'm obviously not planning to go guns-a-blazin' into the crowd of wallflowers, but I'm certainly going to keep my eye out. And as I've mentioned several times, I don't suspect the absent lurkers, the ones who just haven't been able to join. It's the pseudo-lurkers (I was calling them "soft" posters) who are clearly present but aren't contributing (read: aren't sticking their necks out for the good of the town).

There's plenty of meat in the thread to discuss now, so I plan to move away from the lurking topic. Certaintly the points of view are out there, and folks can churn over them if they wish. I don't think anyone else has voiced Idle Thoughts position on the matter, but there have been many who have expressed suspicion of the below-the-radar players. (The fact that others have shared my opinion makes your vote for me, Idle Thoughts, look a bit revenge-y.) If my fellow Nairu followers think I'm off base, do let me know.

I just don't feel and see you're getting my point still or understanding, so I will try one more time and put it as plain as I feel I can.

You keep and continually using the term "LURKERS" and "LURKING". You even say you're FOSsing them and that you WOULD not mind killing off the "lurkers". In all of your posts you keep using the specific word "lurker" or variations thereof...and THIS is what I'm taking issue with and why you're the top one on my list.

HOW do you know they're lurking?

Lurking means READING THE topic and not posting. Lurking means DELIBERATELY staying out of the conversation but still following it along. Lurking requires INTENT.

What I've been saying, all this time, is, how do you know the people who are not posting--who were on that list--are lurking? How you KNOW they are specifically in the wings and reading this topic along but not posting to it? How do you KNOW that it's not, instead, that they HAVEN'T READ or been reading ANY OF THE TOPIC since their last post? Because if it's that case, then the terms "lurking", "lurker" "lurk", etc would not apply..and THAT is all I'm saying and have been trying to say.

IF people ARE lurking and you KNOW they are, then YES, feel free to vote for them and "FOS" against them and try for their heads. Because THAT IS shady to a certain degree, at least. But if someone is just NOT posting that does not = they are lurking. Not posting does not mean someone is lurking...and that is what I'm saying. That just because someone is not posting or not posting MUCH is not a good reason to vote for them. That I'd much rather have them subbed out rather than have people use that as an excuse to vote for them. Because if someone is not able to post at all or much it just means that. That they aren't able to post much or at all. But using that as a reason to vote for them when you say they could be scum works the other way too...they could be essential to us and have a huge helping role and voting for someone who possibly couldn't defend themselves due to not being able to post much could be a heap of trouble. It's just better, to me, to get someone who CAN make a few posts a day and give us something to work with (rather than vote for them). That's what I'm saying, that's all I'm saying, that's what I've been saying all this time, that's what I've said in past games, that's what I'll always say.



And lastly, from your voting post, just this:

The vibe I get from these sorts of statements is: "Hey, vote for this guy, but remember that I didn't say it!" (Perhaps it's just being nice and giving credit where credit's due. Perhaps it's scum trying not to have his own history that can be tracked.)

This in reply to me saying I was suspicious of Pleonast due to points someone else raised.
Going back, I had thought that person was storyteller, but I find it was actually Queuing via this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8720379&postcount=360) post.

AFAIK, for one, I wasn't the only one that did this, as storyteller did here too. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8720391&postcount=362) (and also explains why I mixed the two up and thought it was him that raised the point originally)
And for two, if it was what you put in brackets, why, then, did I remention my suspicions of him (Pleonast) in this recent post of mine? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8726872&postcount=642) If it was just a drive by post, as you say, wouldn't it make more sense to never mention it again?

Anyway, that's all. Maybe all of this is just a misunderstanding of each other. Maybe not. But in any case, I don't know what else I can do to clarify to you what I was trying to say and I feel you're of the same opinion, only regarding me.

Scuba_Ben
06-28-2007, 10:19 PM
I go away for a few hours to eat dinner and watch a limping TV show, and I come back to another 50 posts to wade through, including some lengthy analysis.

So I'll add my own analysis about the game, which I thought about during the past few hours.

Let's take stock of our assets. We have two information roles, one of which is not yet useful, and the "yet" has been discussed ad nauseum, infinitum, e pluribus. We have two protective roles, one of which is at half strength. And we have one attack role, which will average one kill every other Night. We also have one power-blocking role, and one secret attack role.

That's a LOT of active roles. But it's limited by the Oracle and Apprentice unable to definitively ID scum. Which leads me to think about two other roles:

First, the secret role may -- and this is pure speculation -- act as a GM balancer; their role might be used to tune the game to preserve balance, depending on how we use the limited information we have.

Second, we have the monks, who (unlike the masons in M3) are purely pro-town. At the moment, I think these are our best assets. Combine that with the Oracle's ability to (mostly) conclusively ID believers, and I think we can try forming a core group of (more or less) trusted players. The conditionals are, of course, due to the Prophed IDing as a Believer and to the possibility of a recruitment. But at the moment I think it's a useful approach.

Mind you, I haven't yet thought out how to properly establish this core group. For that, I look to guidance from experienced players.

Now if I just had a wheelbarrow....

Hockey Monkey
06-28-2007, 10:37 PM
[QUOTE=Scuba_Ben]<snip>
Let's take stock of our assets. We have two information roles, one of which is not yet useful, and the "yet" has been discussed ad nauseum, infinitum, e pluribus. We have two protective roles, one of which is at half strength. And we have one attack role, which will average one kill every other Night. We also have one power-blocking role, and one secret attack role.

That's a LOT of active roles. But it's limited by the Oracle and Apprentice unable to definitively ID scum. Which leads me to think about two other roles:

First, the secret role may -- and this is pure speculation -- act as a GM balancer; their role might be used to tune the game to preserve balance, depending on how we use the limited information we have.

<snip>QUOTE]

Scuba_Ben, what is it that gives you the impression that the secret role is an "attack" role, or that it is a GM balancer?

Hockey Monkey
06-28-2007, 10:38 PM
Ack, freeeking coding! Preview Monkey, preview! :smack:

Fretful Porpentine
06-28-2007, 11:15 PM
Sheesh. Go away for a few hours and come back to this.

Scattered thoughts: In terms of broader strategy, I think storyteller is right and Mgtman is wrong. That said, I'm inclined to classify Mgtman, like sachertorte, as a townie who's overthinking things, because it takes a bold Cultist to go out on that kind of limb -- and I'm far from sure that storyteller is town, because, well, last time he came off as that reasonable and trustworthy, he was the Godfather :)

For the moment, I'm going to vote Autolycus because his silence is still rubbing me the wrong way, although I can easily be persuaded to do something else if he starts to talk, or if someone else strikes me as a likely suspect.

What does "wine in front of me" mean?

ArizonaTeach
06-28-2007, 11:24 PM
What does "wine in front of me" mean?Prnicess Bride reference. There's really no way of telling if it's poison or wine. There's a lot of annoyance being directed at Auto right now. If it's taking him this long to perfect a "voice" to make it fun for him, this is not helpful in the least.

I am going to go through these posts one last time while it's still manageable, and look for what I believe is the number one tell: inconsistencies. There are two types. 1) inconsistency within a game; and 2) inconsistency between games. Having played two and observed two more, I think I am ready to make some decisions on point 2, which I've never been very comfortable doing before. Point one is more important, though, and I do feel some players have been playing inconsistently within the confines of the first Day.

Fretful Porpentine
06-28-2007, 11:32 PM
Thanks for explaining the reference, AZTeach, but I'm still not sure I understand what "wine in front of me logic" is. Could someone please give an example?

USCDiver
06-28-2007, 11:41 PM
Thanks for explaining the reference, AZTeach, but I'm still not sure I understand what "wine in front of me logic" is. Could someone please give an example?

The Mafiascum.net Wiki article (http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Wine_in_Front_of_Me)

Idle Thoughts
06-28-2007, 11:45 PM
It's not working.

Blaster Master
06-28-2007, 11:57 PM
Is it even possible to not dunk?
Ugh... DarkOliveGreen? :eek:

Actually, that had slipped my mind when I put the rules together. I see no real reason to prohibit it, so if people want to vote No-Dunk, then if No-Dunks have the most votes at the end of the Day, then I'll allow it.

Autolycus
06-29-2007, 12:13 AM
For it is written in the Book of Nairu, chapter 8 verse 19: "Thou shalt not get thy panties in a bunch on Day 1, for that brings folly and much grimacing of faces."

Mine eyes have read our progress, and NAF is acting like a sinful cultist. His list was fraught with errors. Dunk him! Dunk him lest we suffer Her Wrath!

Dunk NAF

Prnicess Bride reference. There's really no way of telling if it's poison or wine. There's a lot of annoyance being directed at Auto right now. If it's taking him this long to perfect a "voice" to make it fun for him, this is not helpful in the least.


Nairu loves those who speak for themselves. Remember this.

Blaster Master
06-29-2007, 12:25 AM
Thanks for explaining the reference, AZTeach, but I'm still not sure I understand what "wine in front of me logic" is. Could someone please give an example?Sorry, I can't resist... it's got to be one of the all time greatest movie scenes.Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder. Of course, I stole it from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes.

Autolycus
06-29-2007, 12:26 AM
It is with great joy that we have defeated the 'master plan' of a certain Magic Player, as the hearts of men are vile and filled with deceit. Only dunking brings the truth.

Nairu bless us, and give us the strength to slay the cultists, whose lives are worthless and who upon death shall lick the nutsack of Sekham for all eternity, Amen.

(If this current role-playing pisses off too many people, let me know and I'll think of a new one :p)

Blaster Master
06-29-2007, 12:37 AM
It is with great joy that we have defeated the 'master plan' of a certain Magic Player, as the hearts of men are vile and filled with deceit. Only dunking brings the truth.

Nairu bless us, and give us the strength to slay the cultists, whose lives are worthless and who upon death shall lick the nutsack of Sekham for all eternity, Amen.

(If this current role-playing pisses off too many people, let me know and I'll think of a new one :p)

This is pretty much exactly what I expected from you. :p

Blaster Master
06-29-2007, 12:39 AM
About 2 1/2 days left. A total of 18 votes.

NAF1138 (3) - FlyingCowOfDoom, Zeriel, Autolycus
Hal Briston (2) - Kyrie Eleison, zuma
MadTheSwine (2) - storyteller0910, HazelNutCoffee
sachertorte (2) - SnakesCatLady, MonkeyMensch
ArizonaTeach (1) - NAF1138
Autolycus (1) - Fretful Porpentine
Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison (1) - MadTheSwine
DiggitCamara (1) - Queuing
Idle Thoughts (1) - Pasta
Malacandra (1) - Pleonast
Pasta (1) - Idle Thoughts
Pleonast (1) - Hockey Monkey
Zuma (1) - Malacandra

ArizonaTeach
06-29-2007, 01:08 AM
Nairu loves those who speak for themselves. Remember this.I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but it's typical unhelpful Auto.

Autolycus
06-29-2007, 01:15 AM
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but it's typical unhelpful Auto.

And pray tell how should I be of service on Day One?

FoS on you for your consistent and multi-game dislike for me.

Captain Klutz
06-29-2007, 01:33 AM
Re: dunking non believers

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Alchemist a non-believer? But doesn't s/he also have the power to possibly HELP against the cultists? From what I read of the role, s/he can block things...which includes kills made by scum...?
Yes, the Alchemist is one of the non believers, but the Alchemist investigates as the Alchemist and so can be confirmed as town. The vanilla non believers invstigate as scum (or rather, scum investigate as vanilla non believers). If someone close to being dunked claimed to be a non believer, would you really find that believable?

ArizonaTeach
06-29-2007, 01:55 AM
And pray tell how should I be of service on Day One?

FoS on you for your consistent and multi-game dislike for me.Heh, consistency is something I believe in!

Look, M2 you were unhelpful because you interpreted the rules wrong.
M4 you were unhelpful because you were using it as a scum strategy.
M5 you're saying some fortune cookie stuff that means nothing, and your vote was, while hell, I'm not arguing with it, barely explained. You can do analysis just fine, we've all seen it, and when you got serious in M3 it was valuable stuff you posted. When you deliberately choose to not offer anyhelp, then, yeah, I'm not going to like it, and since you operated against the benefit of the town the last two times you played this way, what the heck else am I supposed to think about?

Oh, and I want to remind you that I was one of the ones who defended your not posting in M3. I didn't like it, but Forget that little nugget, did we?

For consistently playing against the benefit of the town, and for choosing to offer fluff instead of analysis, and for taking grudges

Idle Thoughts
06-29-2007, 01:58 AM
Re: dunking non believers

Yes, the Alchemist is one of the non believers, but the Alchemist investigates as the Alchemist and so can be confirmed as town. The vanilla non believers invstigate as scum (or rather, scum investigate as vanilla non believers). If someone close to being dunked claimed to be a non believer, would you really find that believable?

Huh? Then why does a few of Blaster Master's posts at the beginning say the Alchemist would investigate as a non-believer? :dubious:

ArizonaTeach
06-29-2007, 02:00 AM
Oh, and I want to remind you that I was one of the ones who defended your not posting in M3. I didn't like it, but Forget that little nugget, did we?

For consistently playing against the benefit of the town, and for choosing to offer fluff instead of analysis, and for taking grudgesDamn, hit send there by accident. Let me do that last part again.

Oh, and I want to remind you that I was one of the ones who defended your not posting in M4. I didn't care for it, but I defended it. Forget that little nugget, did we? You were the one who turned intentional lurking into a scum strategy. Do not be shocked and hurt when it comes back to haunt you.

For consistently playing against the benefit of the town, and for choosing to offer fluff instead of analysis (you never did explain what that comment to me meant), and for taking grudges across games, I am going to vote Autolycus.

ArizonaTeach
06-29-2007, 02:02 AM
Dammit, I also meant "M2" in post 691 when I accidentally said M3 - that was the game Auto actually posted non-"in character" analysis.

I think it's bedtime.

Captain Klutz
06-29-2007, 02:08 AM
Yes, I haven't posted much yet, mainly because I haven't got much useful to contribute. The minimum contribution we can expect from everyone is a vote together with justification - anyone who fails to vote, or who gives unconvincing reasons, is worthy of a strong FOS.
In reply,
This is the sort of below-the-radar thing that makes me suspicious.
This wasn't meant as a nothing statement, just a way of saying "I expect everyone to vote each game day". However, it seemed to rub some people the wrong way.

This is my first Mafia game and I found posting a bit daunting at first, which is one reason I waited before starting to post (I also spent a while trying to figure out how to organise my various spreadsheets/charts/notes etc).

So far the most suspicious thing I've seen is the bizarre Malacandra-zuma exchange (posts 546 and 547). Mal's post was pretty crazy, but zuma's happy acceptance of it was completly unexpected. So vote zuma.

Captain Klutz
06-29-2007, 02:25 AM
Huh? Then why does a few of Blaster Master's posts at the beginning say the Alchemist would investigate as a non-believer? :dubious:
Dang, you're right, the Alchemist also investigates as non believer. So yes, the Alchemist can't be confirmed.

But my point still stands: how much credence can you give to a claim of Alchemist/non believer?

Autolycus
06-29-2007, 02:27 AM
For consistently playing against the benefit of the town, and for choosing to offer fluff instead of analysis, and for taking grudges

Constantly playing against the benefit of the town? Yes, indeed I fucked up in M2. I was scum in M4, and I played my role well. I suppose I should have just said from the get-go "Hey everybody I'm a pirate," and helped the town out in order to protect myself against specious arguments like this.

Anyway, I'm not holding a grudge. That would appear to be you, as you didn't think it was necessary to explain your beef with me in detail until after I complained. You criticized my present performance based upon my previous play, which might not be holding grudges but it's certainly not helpful. I'm also not the one switching my vote out of irritation. I guess that's what you consider 'helpful? '

My "speak for thyself" comment was a reply to your "Autolycus has annoyed a lot of people" remark. I think it was more accurate to say "Autolycus has annoyed me a lot over the past few games."

I'll counter your "you didn't explain your comment" and raise you a response to my question, "How should I be helpful on flippin' Day One."

Neiru damnit, I'm willing to let this be water over the dam, but your lust to take me out of the picture soon strikes me as a scum trying to eliminate me without spending a night kill. Out of your three reasons to lynch me, the first is flawed and the second two are hardly reason to kill anyone, although since is the first day I guess any reason is good right? Besides, you know I can be an assett whichever side I'm on, and you know that you have a good chance of offing me with your "unhelpful Auto" comments. It's a good thing I finally started posting, or you would have probably gotten away with it this time.

So, strong FoS on you, and possible vote change later.

HazelNutCoffee
06-29-2007, 04:08 AM
I've been contemplating my vote, mostly because MtS has not been back to post anything in response to the accusations, which is what I am waiting for in order to decide whether to keep my vote where it is or move it according to my other suspcions. 3 in the morning after a night out with friends is probably not the best time to be thinking about anything, but re-reading NAF's last post directed towards me, it seems rather belligerent, which is slightly coloring my interpretation of it. I feel like I was raising a legitimate concern, which was answered with a "sucks to be a newbie, don't tell me what to do" type of answer. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that aggressive responses are something that scum would avoid, at least at this point in the game. Which is why I am also still suspicious of zuma's nonchalant reaction to Mal's vote.

Eh. I'll sleep on it and hopefully my head will be clearer in the morning.

Scuba_Ben
06-29-2007, 09:16 AM
First, the secret role may -- and this is pure speculation -- act as a GM balancer; their role might be used to tune the game to preserve balance, depending on how we use the limited information we have.Scuba_Ben, what is it that gives you the impression that the secret role is an "attack" role, or that it is a GM balancer?Very little: The thoughts that (1) the Oracle can't tell between Nonbeliever and Cultist; (2) the Nonbelievers don't know who each other are; (3) there's a lot of pro-town power roles, even if we assume that there's only one player holding each role. That leads me to speculate that the game balance may be sufficiently hazy that Glorious GM Blaster Master has a way of tuning the balance. For the record, I consider my speculation on this to be of negligible usefulness.

But I never speculated that the secret role may be an attack role. Where are you inferring that from?

In other news -- Autolycus, I'm glad to see you show up in the thread, and I like seeing people play characters. As entertaining as your characterization is, I'd appreciate some useful analysis, strategizing, or some other sort of post that I can learn from.

Blaster Master
06-29-2007, 09:49 AM
Nava will be taking the place of Captain Carrot. I will post an updated player list presently.

Hockey Monkey
06-29-2007, 09:51 AM
<snip>

Let's take stock of our assets. We have two information roles, one of which is not yet useful, and the "yet" has been discussed ad nauseum, infinitum, e pluribus. We have two protective roles, one of which is at half strength. And we have one attack role, which will average one kill every other Night. We also have one power-blocking role, and one secret attack role.

That's a LOT of active roles. But it's limited by the Oracle and Apprentice unable to definitively ID scum. Which leads me to think about two other roles:

<snip>....

Bolded and Sized: Your words, not mine.

fluiddruid
06-29-2007, 10:07 AM
I vote sachertorte , for the nonce. It's because of the Big Scheme (which shall go nameless here) proposed earlier. If there's one thing I learned in M2 it's that the Beat Cops' (Apprentice) single night's Investigations (Ritual) were not worth much. We can hope that the Oracle finds the Apprentice but it's not worth getting panties bunched.I tend to agree. Frankly I have been reading but not posting much as I didn't really want to participate in the 'discussion that will not be named', and feel that this whole discussion is so much smoke and mirrors - ultimately unproductive and possibly dangerous. While I think it's not necessarily a smoking gun to discuss role detection, on Day One, I feel sachertorte is the best we've got. Not that I'm entirely convinced NAF's on the up-and-up, but, I don't see a huge division on his posting style now than as a townie in MIII.

For now: vote sachertorte.

FlyingCowOfDoom
06-29-2007, 10:14 AM
Bolded and Sized: Your words, not mine.Perhaps he was referring to the Psychopath?

--FCOD

Blaster Master
06-29-2007, 10:16 AM
1 ArizonaTeach
2 USCDiver
3 Idle Thoughts
4 Zuma
5 Hockey Monkey
6 storyteller0910
7 NAF1138
8 sachertorte
9 SnakesCatLady
10 Malacandra
11 Mtgman
12 Kyrie Eleison (repl. Clockwork Jackal)
13 Hal Briston
14 Pleonast
15 DiggitCamara
16 Fretful Porpentine
17 Nava (repl. Captain Carrot)
18 Pasta
19 FlyingCowOfDoom
20 Scuba_Ben
21 Queuing
22 Zeriel
23 MonkeyMensch
24 ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
25 Autolycus
26 HazelNutCoffee
27 MHaye
28 fluiddruid
29 MadTheSwine
30 Captain Klutz

Captain Klutz
06-29-2007, 10:35 AM
I think the best strategy is for the Oracle and Apprentice to stay alive as long as possible and do a big reveal after a few Day/Night cycles(after which they live only as long as the Priest can protect them). Dropping breadcrumbs, while nice, is risky too.
I almost agree with this. I believe the Apprentice should not role claim as his/her investigations are more confusing than helpful. The Apprentice only gets reliable info after the Oracle dies, so should wait for several further Day/Night cycles before claiming.

However, this is going to take a heck of a lot of Day/Night cycles, especially since the Apprentice does not always get a reading (after the Oracle dies, the Apprentice gets either an accurate reading or no reading).

Because of this, the Apprentice is basically a useless role. The only useful thing they can do is identify the Avatar, as this will always be read accurately. I will say to the Apprentice, if you find the Avatar then please claim immediately.

Scuba_Ben
06-29-2007, 10:41 AM
Hockey Monkey, I apologize, you have correctly quoted me. That slipped by me during preview; I had never thought the secret role was an attack role. What I had written up at one point was the Psychopath -- which in point of fact is better described as an unactivated attack role -- but I thought I had deleted it.

On preview: Flying Cow of Doom is pretty close.

Also on preview: I partially disagree with Captain Klutz, I think the Apprentice should not announce the Avatar immediately, until the Apprentice gets at least 70% accuracy on readings. But this depends on whether the Apprentice can misread someone else as the Avatar.

Kyrie Eleison
06-29-2007, 10:42 AM
Because of this, the Apprentice is basically a useless role. The only useful thing they can do is identify the Avatar, as this will always be read accurately. I will say to the Apprentice, if you find the Avatar then please claim immediately.
And then what? Do we lynch the Apprentice that day and the Avatar the next? Don't forget, the Apprentice knows who the Oracle is, and is subject to recruitment.

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 10:45 AM
In post 670 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727810&postcount=670) Queuing responds to my query as to why the 'have the apprentice reveal the oracle' scheme got conflated with my ideas on coordination:

1. Try harder to let it go
2. Complaining about other's not taking the same 'heat' as you is not helpful, particularly when the reason is they actually shut-up about their idea when it was shown to be flawed.
3. Try harder to let it go
Which I find hilarious*, because Queuing is one of the very people that I think should get some heat too. It was Queuing himself lending support to the very, very bad plan in post 551 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724887&postcount=551)
A few things:


I don't hate the idea of everyone picking a name and yelling it out, allowing the Oracle to find the apprentice. From a risk/reward perspective I see a much greater reward then the previous oracle/apprentice discussion.
This is all very self-serving. I read Queuing's desire to shut me up about pursuing those who discussed the second plan as an attempt to avoid scrutiny of Queuing himself.

He continues in post 670 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727810&postcount=670) to blame DiggitCamara for the flawed plan.
Dunk DiggitCamara.

I do this for 2 reasons;

- his vote for cookie and then unvote very quickly all done due to "tradition" that isn't even a tradition (2 out of 4 does not a tradition make)

-it was he who posted the 2nd Oracle/Apprentice plan. While he has not kept on about this plan, like a couple other people, I seem to recall that this idea was thrown out there once the discussion of the other plan had seemed to die off. This cause further plan discussion, including the divide and conquer plan rearing its head again. I admit I was caught up in this discussion again, as were other people. IMO I believe it is time to STFU about great plans to solve this game once and for all. It ain't going to happen. We have had 2 plans proposed both shown to be severely flawd, and a mammoth post or 2 from someone who also loves the idea of a cohesive plan.
(color removed)
Queuing does admit to getting "caught up in this discussion again," but the tone strikes me as 'Poor me, I got caught up with those riff-raff.' What Queuing doesn't tell you is that he supported the plan for which he's holding DiggitCamara accountable. Looks scummy to me.

*and by hilarious I mean suspicious
Vote Queuing

MHaye
06-29-2007, 10:45 AM
Also on preview: I partially disagree with Captain Klutz, I think the Apprentice should not announce the Avatar immediately, until the Apprentice gets at least 70% accuracy on readings. But this depends on whether the Apprentice can misread someone else as the Avatar.According to this post here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8720663&postcount=370), not even the Apprentice can mix the Avatar up with any other role.

NAF1138
06-29-2007, 10:54 AM
I've been contemplating my vote, mostly because MtS has not been back to post anything in response to the accusations, which is what I am waiting for in order to decide whether to keep my vote where it is or move it according to my other suspcions. 3 in the morning after a night out with friends is probably not the best time to be thinking about anything, but re-reading NAF's last post directed towards me, it seems rather belligerent, which is slightly coloring my interpretation of it. I feel like I was raising a legitimate concern, which was answered with a "sucks to be a newbie, don't tell me what to do" type of answer. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that aggressive responses are something that scum would avoid, at least at this point in the game. Which is why I am also still suspicious of zuma's nonchalant reaction to Mal's vote.

Eh. I'll sleep on it and hopefully my head will be clearer in the morning.


I want to apologize if I came of beligerant in my responce to you yesterday. It was not my intenting. When I said it sucks that you don't have the history, I meant it. It is harder for you.

I was admitadly getting frustrated by people saying that we should not bring past games into the experiance (you weren't the only one) and while I can understand that from a practicle viewpoint for the new players, it is almost impossible for me to actually ignore things I have learned about players in the past. So you were picking up on that frustration I guess.

Also yesterday was a strange day for me in general IRL.

Scuba_Ben
06-29-2007, 10:54 AM
According to this post here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8720663&postcount=370), not even the Apprentice can mix the Avatar up with any other role.I double-checked that; I'm asking about the reverse case: Could the Apprentice mis-read somebody else as the Avatar?

storyteller0910
06-29-2007, 10:57 AM
Very little: The thoughts that (1) the Oracle can't tell between Nonbeliever and Cultist;

Whoa. I think I missed this fact. This is of enormous and fundamental importance. Depending upon the number of non-Cult non-believers included in the game, this completely eliminates (or, at least makes phenomenally unlikely) the possibility of a purely Investigator-driven victory. In any previous game, the Oracle/Detective/whatever was able to definitively identify scum, such that we could lynch based on his or her findings without needing to discuss it at all. But in this game, even if the Oracle determines for certain that a particular player is a nonbeliever, we cannot lynch that player without attempting to suss out whether he/she is a Cultist or a generic nonbeliever.

Frankly, this handicaps the investigative power roles so much that it makes me terribly suspicious of those - particularly Mtgman and sachertorte - who have proposed strategies emphasizing the utilization of those roles. Consider Mtgman's strategy, which before I thought was misguided, but based on this bit of information becomes disastrous. Under his plan, even if the Oracle survives long enough to do six investigations (let's say) - and say the Oracle is able to identify three nonbelievers. If we lynch based on this information alone (and under his plan, this information is all we'd have, there's a nonzero chance of lynching no Cultists at all.

Mtgman, it seems to me that your proposition, which was presented as terribly reasonable and with just enough words to keep people a little confused, would have us rely on two roles that cannot even reliably detect scum as our one and only method of detecting scum. I know there's a general sentiment of "why would scum be so verbose," but it seems to me that if you were scum, presenting this wildly flawed plan is a no-risk maneuver: if the town goes along with it, the Cultists are sitting pretty, and if they don't, everyone will assume that your presentation of the plan was too obvious to be scummy.

I need to re-read both your and sachertorte's posts a bit more carefully with this new information in mind; I think there's a fair chance I'll end up voting for one of you in the end.

MHaye
06-29-2007, 10:58 AM
I double-checked that; I'm asking about the reverse case: Could the Apprentice mis-read somebody else as the Avatar?I don't think the Apprentice can make any mistake about the Avatar. From the role descriptions :Further, because of the great evil flowing in your veins, the Oracle and Apprentice will make no mistake identifying you and cannot mistake anyone else as you.(Bolding mine).

That would seem to suggest the answer to your question is "no." Unless BM wants to chime in?

storyteller0910
06-29-2007, 11:00 AM
And then what? Do we lynch the Apprentice that day and the Avatar the next? Don't forget, the Apprentice knows who the Oracle is, and is subject to recruitment.

Geez, there are all kinds of implications to this ruleset that hadn't occurred to me. If the Apprentice gets recruited, he can reveal the identity of the Oracle to the scum just by telling them. Augh.

Queuing
06-29-2007, 11:01 AM
670 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727810&postcount=670) to blame DiggitCamara for the flawed plan.


Snipped.

I blame diggitcamara as it was his plan. So your wording here is at best misleading. I also admitted to my initial liking of the plan. Until it was shown that it was indeed a very bad plan. It was in fact you who showed it be such.

Again you miss the difference between your actions, Diggit Camara and mine.

You proposed a plan. It was repeatedly torn apart. You repeatedly proposed it. Even admitting you have a desire to be right, barely acknowledging any of the points against the plan. Your plan had risk, you admit this risk. Your plan had pretty much nothing to gain. This has been shown to you, yet you keep talking about it. Since you won't shut up about it people are becoming suspicious of you. So instead of you know, shutting up about it, you instead go "but I wasn't the only one who thought of a plan that sucked! Why aren't you guys going after them too?". Not acknowledging the difference between the 2 plan developers and supporters. This difference is; the developer of divide and conquer plan (you) wouldn't shut up about a plan with no gain; the developer of the announce plan (diggitcamara) has posted 2 times on his plan,a supporter (me) said he liked the announce plan better as the reward was potentially actually useful. Until shown that the risk was to great. Then both people linked in your mind to the announce plan have shut up about it.

Do you see the difference here?

ON PREVIEW: Scuba Ben, no one else can be read as the avatar except the avatar. cite (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8714516&postcount=5)

Zeriel
06-29-2007, 11:20 AM
Oh man, storyteller's right. To the point that if the Apprentice is revealed, it's seems like it'd be suddenly strongly in our interest for someone to protect him full-time lest he be converted and then we've lost the Oracle as well.

sachertorte has a good point about Queuing's flip-flop about DiggitCamara's plan, but on preview I think Q's right.

On the other hand, I don't know why there's so much voting for sachertorte, either--despite his harping on the plan, there's absolutely no way for him or any of us to force the O&A to do anything, so all it really does is put a Wine Taking question on the scum--will the O&A do it, because the scum know about the plan so the O&A'd have to be crazy to do it, which is the last thing the scum would suspect.

Mgtman's particular plan was way more detrimental to the town's interest, he just backed off it sooner.

I'm considering backing off my vote on NAF1138, but only because there are so many interesting things happening I'm not sure who I trust least anymore.

Zeriel
06-29-2007, 11:26 AM
To clarify my defense of sachertorte and mgtman, I mean--I don't want to get into a situation where there's any animosity about discussing plans and working them out. There's a difference between proposing a course of behavior for power roles to follow or not at whim, and attempting to actually implement that course.

The latter, I'd think, is more worthy of a vote than the former, but like many others here I'm both a newbie and fascinated by game analysis so the idea of debating a winning strategy is appealing to me.

Finally, isn't it a lot suspicious that Kyrie Eleison immediately jumps to kill the Apprentice rather than protect the Apprentice? Given the options town has for protective roles (Priest, Disciple, and to a small extent Alchemist), I can't believe I missed that on my first pass through the thread this morning.

Combined with my earlier suspicion of Clockwork Jackal, that's enough for me to
unvote NAF1138
vote Kyrie Eleison

USCDiver
06-29-2007, 11:26 AM
Because of this, the Apprentice is basically a useless role. The only useful thing they can do is identify the Avatar, as this will always be read accurately. I will say to the Apprentice, if you find the Avatar then please claim immediately.

While the Avatar is ostensibly anti-Village, his presence helps the Villagers by tempering the Cultists ability to pile onto his/her impending Drowning in the ole 'cult voting for cult' strategy. By doing so they risk the death of one their own.

Scuba_Ben
06-29-2007, 11:31 AM
I checked the full description of the roles in #2, and my question has been answered. (But it took a while as the server's hampsters apparantly needed feeding.)

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 11:33 AM
I need to re-read both your and sachertorte's posts a bit more carefully with this new information in mind; I think there's a fair chance I'll end up voting for one of you in the end.
Please do. Tell me if you find anything in coordination that makes the town over reliant on the results. Also, I think that if you missed that non-believers and cultists yield the same readings, then you should be open to the possiblity that Mtgman might have as well. I didn't, but I don't think the existence of Millers affects the coordination plan.

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 11:35 AM
I vote sachertorte, for the nonce. It's because of the Big Scheme (which shall go nameless here) proposed earlier. If there's one thing I learned in M2 it's that the Beat Cops' (Apprentice) single night's Investigations (Ritual) were not worth much. We can hope that the Oracle finds the Apprentice but it's not worth getting panties bunched.
(color removed)
That's fine. You're not the first, and I doubt you will be the last. Do you want me to respond? Because I will, but I don't think there really is anything more to say on the matter. I've been avoiding casting suspicion on people who vote for me, because my ideas have invitied it many times. The problem I have with this vote is MonkeyMensch says:
Ah. That was a nice read. Only a page and a quarter, once I had set the filters for no posts shown with "Oracle or Apprentice or probability". :)
Which implies to me that you haven't read what I have to say, yet are willing to vote for me anyway. Suspicous? Lazy? I'm not sure. At the very least I suggest you read post #633 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8726389&postcount=633)

(oops, sorry I had this ready to go a while ago but didn't post it. Also, fluiddruid, please read).

Kyrie Eleison
06-29-2007, 11:35 AM
Oh man, storyteller's right. To the point that if the Apprentice is revealed, it's seems like it'd be suddenly strongly in our interest for someone to protect him full-time lest he be converted and then we've lost the Oracle as well.
storyteller's right? What am I, chopped liver? :p

Finally, isn't it a lot suspicious that Kyrie Eleison immediately jumps to kill the Apprentice rather than protect the Apprentice? Given the options town has for protective roles (Priest, Disciple, and to a small extent Alchemist), I can't believe I missed that on my first pass through the thread this morning.
I confess I overlooked that the doctor-type roles were able to protect from recruitment as well as night-kills. That wasn't the case in the last game (M3) that featured recruitment.

Captain Klutz
06-29-2007, 11:39 AM
For those who are filtering posts:

Keywords: metagame, group strategy, role analysis :D


Mgtman and Sachertorte,

I do find your analyses interesting, but I feel that you are playing a different game to the rest of us. Finding clever ways of coordinating various roles is the sort of thing that belongs in a separate discussion.

Mgtman (#649) posted a suggested method of gaining a town win. Storyteller pointed out various problems with it, but even if it did guarantee victory I still wouldn't want to do it, as it's no fun, it's just mechanically following a prescribed process. Of course, you regard that process as the solution, problem solved.

That sort of analysis doesn't need to be done within the game. In fact, it doesn't even need to be a real game at all. Imagine someone posed a puzzle like "Here are some roles and rules. Devise a strategy that allows A to find B and kill C without alerting D". Now this could have some truly ingenious solutions, and I would actually be interested in it, but it's a different sort of game than what everyone else is playing. Mafia is about people, not roles. I'm not very good at it myself (I read through all the games on this board and found that I was really bad at spotting scum) but I think I'm getting better.

I am not going to vote for either of you as I don't find your analyses scummy. I'll just (politely) ask you to stop the role analysis and start the people analysis.

I'll just add that yes, I know that Mgtman was not actually advocating that we follow his suggestion, he was just putting it forward as an example of how the town could coordinate, but my point stands.

Kyrie Eleison
06-29-2007, 11:47 AM
Actually, Zeriel, I want to follow up on that. I find it a bit odd that you credit the observation that the Apprentice's revelation and subsequent recruitment endanger the Oracle to storyteller, and then ding me for my earlier post noting and asking about how to deal with the problem. I'm not sure whether it's suspicious, but it does strike me as strange.

Hockey Monkey
06-29-2007, 11:56 AM
[QUOTE=Captain Klutz]For those who are filtering posts:

Keywords: metagame, group strategy, role analysis :D

[QUOTE]

Captain, may I point out that you just filtered your own post. And consequently this one because I quoted it. So you aren't reading this. :D

Just my way of saying you are going to be missing a great deal of the information you need if you filter the posts. Read everything. (Or at least skim it if it's not a conversation you are interested in.)

NAF1138
06-29-2007, 11:59 AM
[QUOTE=Captain Klutz]For those who are filtering posts:

Keywords: metagame, group strategy, role analysis :D

[QUOTE]

Captain, may I point out that you just filtered your own post. And consequently this one because I quoted it. So you aren't reading this. :D

Just my way of saying you are going to be missing a great deal of the information you need if you filter the posts. Read everything. (Or at least skim it if it's not a conversation you are interested in.)


Just out of curiosity...how do you filter posts?

USCDiver
06-29-2007, 12:00 PM
Seriously people, the filter comment was a joke and Captain was listing keywords associated with his impending post so other's could 'filter it'.

NAF1138
06-29-2007, 12:05 PM
Seriously people, the filter comment was a joke and Captain was listing keywords associated with his impending post so other's could 'filter it'.


Ahh, well then. Color me wooshed. :o

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 12:05 PM
I also admitted to my initial liking of the plan.
No, you didn't (Post 670 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727810&postcount=670) ) You said you got caught up in the discussion. You did not say you had supported the plan when you voted for DiggitCamara.

Do you see the difference here?
I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this.

I don't accuse you for backing DiggitCamara's idea. I don't mind that DiggitCamara was thinking along those lines. I accuse Queuing because of inconsistency:

- Telling me I shouldn't expect those that discussed plan#2 to be held accountable. Then holding DiggitCamara accountable for plan#2.

- Furthermore Queuing supported DiggitCamara's plan originally. How can Queuing of all people use a plan he supported as reason to vote for DiggitCamara? How is this logical? If Queuing himself looked at the plan and thought, 'yeah, that doesn't suck,' how can he blame DiggitCamara for thinking it was a viable plan too? How can Queuing excuse his own blind spot and at the same time hold DiggitCamara accountable for the same mistake? Inconsistent!

Hal Briston
06-29-2007, 12:08 PM
Ok, much going on the past 48 hours, so I'm picking away when I can. A few notes on things I'm picked up:

Hockey Monkey's grilling of Scuba Ben in Post #675 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727985&postcount=675) and Post #701 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8729025&postcount=701). While the entire bit was a misunderstanding, the bottom line is that Hockey Monkey thought Scuba Ben had knowledge of the secret role, and was trying to get it out of him. If Scuba Ben was this "secret attack role" (and assuming it was a pro-town role), then trying to unmask him was a very scummy act. FOS on Hockey Monkey

Autolycus, I hereby publicly apologize for killing you in M4 simply for staying in character. You do all the...errr...whatever it is you do that you like, I'm cool with it. I would, however, suggest stepping up the content quotient.

I'm a little puzzled as to people's reaction to zuma's shrugging off of Malacandra vote (#546 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724805&postcount=546) and #547 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724842&postcount=547)). I have my own issues with zuma (quoth the Kenobi, "Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"), but I don't see how not getting riled up over a single vote on Day One is a big deal.

More to come as my workday begins and I can concentrate on important things...like this, for example. :)

Captain Klutz
06-29-2007, 12:09 PM
Yes, I saw an earlier jest about filtering posts so I did that to add a bit of levity.

I have no idea if posts can be filtered, but I don't want any filtering (I do read all the posts).

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 12:09 PM
Oh USCDiver, you're here.
This morning I was thinking about the game, and I realized I owe you an apology. I hurt your feelings yesterday, and while I didn't intend to, it's clear that I did. I'm sorry.

I should have apologized right away. In my defense, your 'numbskull' comment had me in an off mindset. Sorry.

ArizonaTeach
06-29-2007, 12:19 PM
Constantly playing against the benefit of the town? Yes, indeed I fucked up in M2. I was scum in M4, and I played my role well. I suppose I should have just said from the get-go "Hey everybody I'm a pirate," and helped the town out in order to protect myself against specious arguments like this.

Anyway, I'm not holding a grudge. That would appear to be you, as you didn't think it was necessary to explain your beef with me in detail until after I complained. You criticized my present performance based upon my previous play, which might not be holding grudges but it's certainly not helpful. I'm also not the one switching my vote out of irritation. I guess that's what you consider 'helpful? ' I gave my reasons for voting for you, and they're valid, not irritation. You are one suspicious guy. I also never voted for you for lack of particpation in the other games, so how is this a grudge on my part?

My "speak for thyself" comment was a reply to your "Autolycus has annoyed a lot of people" remark. I think it was more accurate to say "Autolycus has annoyed me a lot over the past few games."

I'll counter your "you didn't explain your comment" and raise you a response to my question, "How should I be helpful on flippin' Day One."I assume you noticed not only the number of people who have been annoyed with your lack of participation, but also the ones who have since said (paraphrasing), please post content and not fluff? And it seems a LOT of people are contributing nicely on Day One.

Neiru damnit, I'm willing to let this be water over the dam, but your lust to take me out of the picture soon strikes me as a scum trying to eliminate me without spending a night kill. Out of your three reasons to lynch me, the first is flawed and the second two are hardly reason to kill anyone, although since is the first day I guess any reason is good right? Besides, you know I can be an assett whichever side I'm on, and you know that you have a good chance of offing me with your "unhelpful Auto" comments. It's a good thing I finally started posting, or you would have probably gotten away with it this time.

So, strong FoS on you, and possible vote change later.Lust to take you out? I certainly gave more reason and have more evidence than your vote did. I also didn't vote for you at all until I saw you were going to to the SAME THING THAT WAS ANTI-TOWN IN THE OTHER GAMES. Once I saw that it was the same pattern, you darn well better believe I'll be suspicious of it.

However, I do thank you for being more substantial; that's all I wanted, even if it does make you feel uneasy with me, at least now we're getting some sort of helpful participation from you.

Hockey Monkey
06-29-2007, 12:26 PM
Ok, much going on the past 48 hours, so I'm picking away when I can. A few notes on things I'm picked up:

Hockey Monkey's grilling of Scuba Ben in Post #675 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8727985&postcount=675) and Post #701 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8729025&postcount=701). While the entire bit was a misunderstanding, the bottom line is that Hockey Monkey thought Scuba Ben had knowledge of the secret role, and was trying to get it out of him. If Scuba Ben was this "secret attack role" (and assuming it was a pro-town role), then trying to unmask him was a very scummy act. FOS on Hockey Monkey

Autolycus, I hereby publicly apologize for killing you in M4 simply for staying in character. You do all the...errr...whatever it is you do that you like, I'm cool with it. I would, however, suggest stepping up the content quotient.

I'm a little puzzled as to people's reaction to zuma's shrugging off of Malacandra vote (#546 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724805&postcount=546) and #547 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8724842&postcount=547)). I have my own issues with zuma (quoth the Kenobi, "Who is more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"), but I don't see how not getting riled up over a single vote on Day One is a big deal.

More to come as my workday begins and I can concentrate on important things...like this, for example. :)

I would hardly call that a grilling. I wanted to know if I missed something. He said he never said it, and I quoted his post for him. He explained. *shrug*

Why did you think I thought Scuba was the secret role and I was "unmasking" him? Is that what you thought when you read his post? I thought, "Hey maybe I missed something in the rules." There are a lot of nuances in the roles, and I've missed key components already that have been clarified.

USCDiver
06-29-2007, 12:32 PM
Oh USCDiver, you're here.
This morning I was thinking about the game, and I realized I owe you an apology. I hurt your feelings yesterday, and while I didn't intend to, it's clear that I did. I'm sorry.

I should have apologized right away. In my defense, your 'numbskull' comment had me in an off mindset. Sorry.

Apology accepted. I apologize for calling you a numbskull.

Captain Klutz
06-29-2007, 12:33 PM
While the Avatar is ostensibly anti-Village, his presence helps the Villagers by tempering the Cultists ability to pile onto his/her impending Drowning in the ole 'cult voting for cult' strategy. By doing so they risk the death of one their own.
The Avatar is scum. Killing a confirmed scum (in fact, the only confirmable scum) is good for the town.

I agree that the presence of the Avatar tempers the scums votes, but that needs to be balanced against the need to eliminate all the scum.

In light of the also mentioned recruitment possibilities (i.e. recruiting the Apprentice to learn the identity of the Oracle) we have the following possibilies should the Apprentice find the Avatar:

1. Role claim and identifiy the Avatar. We then dunk the Apprentice (to guarantee against recruitment as well as confirming the role claim). Then the Crusader can safely take out the Avatar. (Not sure what to do if the Crusader is gone)

2. Keep quiet and... what? Do you breadcrumb (big crumbs)? Do you try to steer toward an Avatar dunk? Or what?

Note that dunking the Avatar is more likely to result in a town death than a scum death. The Avatar tempers scum voting for scum, but it is a bigger danger for the town.

Okay, so now I don't know what to do. If the answer is that the Apprentice should keep quiet and do nothing with the knowledge then the Apprentice is pretty well completely useless. In fact, worse that useless, as recruiting the Apprentice costs us the Oracle.

Zeriel
06-29-2007, 12:34 PM
Actually, Zeriel, I want to follow up on that. I find it a bit odd that you credit the observation that the Apprentice's revelation and subsequent recruitment endanger the Oracle to storyteller, and then ding me for my earlier post noting and asking about how to deal with the problem. I'm not sure whether it's suspicious, but it does strike me as strange.

my second post included the phrase "I can't believe I missed that on my first read-through today" for precisely that reason. =P

Hal Briston
06-29-2007, 12:38 PM
I would hardly call that a grilling. I wanted to know if I missed something. He said he never said it, and I quoted his post for him. He explained. *shrug*

Why did you think I thought Scuba was the secret role and I was "unmasking" him? Is that what you thought when you read his post? I thought, "Hey maybe I missed something in the rules." There are a lot of nuances in the roles, and I've missed key components already that have been clarified.Fair enough...I can see that being the case. My thought was that if you thought someone slipped and may have revealed themselves as the Secret Role, then the best move would be not to call attention to it.

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 12:39 PM
Apology accepted. I apologize for calling you a numbskull.
Accepted, and thank you.

Hal Briston
06-29-2007, 12:41 PM
The Avatar is scum. Killing a confirmed scum (in fact, the only confirmable scum) is good for the town.Judging by his post, I'm thinking that USCDiver mixed up the Avatar with the Psychopath.

Hal Briston
06-29-2007, 12:43 PM
Judging by his post, I'm thinking that USCDiver mixed up the Avatar with the Psychopath.Actually, I guess that should say "judging by your response to his post...".

After actually reading USCDiver's post, I see that was not the case at all. I get a demerit.

HazelNutCoffee
06-29-2007, 12:46 PM
Sweet Nairu. I haven't even had any coffee yet and already there are more posts to wade through.

I shall return with (admittedly questionable) insight. After my coffee. *ducks into the local cafe*

Hal Briston
06-29-2007, 12:48 PM
After my coffee.Any particular flavor?

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 12:50 PM
I don't think the Avatar's tempering of scum votes is a good thing. I think its bad, because it throws out of whack past experience on how scum might vote. We really don't know how scum will react to the presence of the Avatar and even the experienced players won't know for sure how scum will react and vote. How less likely will it be? I don't think we can know that.

Furthermore, does making scum less likely to vote for scum make it harder to dunk scum? I'm not sure if this is true, I'm just asking. It seems like a bad thing.

The Avatar makes scum behavior different. And different is bad because we don't have experience in identifying behavior under these conditions. Basically everything about the Avatar is bad, which now that I say it makes this post seem utterly silly.

Queuing
06-29-2007, 12:55 PM
- Telling me I shouldn't expect those that discussed plan#2 to be held accountable. Then holding DiggitCamara accountable for plan#2.

I never said anything of the sort. I said your whining about others not being held accountable was not useful. Then I showed why some people might be more inclined to go after you rather then Diggit camara, or myself for being the originator and an initial supporter.

- Furthermore Queuing supported DiggitCamara's plan originally. How can Queuing of all people use a plan he supported as reason to vote for DiggitCamara? How is this logical? If Queuing himself looked at the plan and thought, 'yeah, that doesn't suck,' how can he blame DiggitCamara for thinking it was a viable plan too? How can Queuing excuse his own blind spot and at the same time hold DiggitCamara accountable for the same mistake? Inconsistent!

I did not use the plan itself as any reason to vote for him. I used the proposal timing of said plan. Not the plan itself. In correlation with his random voting and unvote. The only thing inconsistent is your reading comprehension.

Blaster Master
06-29-2007, 12:57 PM
I double-checked that; I'm asking about the reverse case: Could the Apprentice mis-read somebody else as the Avatar?

No, a reading of Avatar is guaranteed to be 100% correct. Here's the relevant quote from the rules:

Further, because of the great evil flowing in your veins, the Oracle and Apprentice will make no mistake identifying you and cannot mistake anyone else as you.

ETA: I see MHaye already drew up the approrpriate quote.

Hal Briston
06-29-2007, 01:00 PM
The Avatar makes scum behavior different. And different is bad because we don't have experience in identifying behavior under these conditions.But doesn't past experience dictate that the scum will behave differently anyway? If you look at their voting patterns from each game, you see they've always changed up their behaviour.

Now, eventually they'll have to behave in a way that we've seen before, but we won't know about until it's already come to pass. Adding the Avatar to the mix just makes for another factor that no one knows about -- not us, not the scum, hell, not even the Avatar himself. All we can do is play things out as usual*, and hope that when the Avatar finally goes off, he takes one of his buddies with him.

(*Note: This, of course, will change if the Oracle/Apprentice happens across the Avatar. Personally, I have no fricking clue how they should handle that one)

sachertorte
06-29-2007, 01:51 PM
The only thing inconsistent is your reading comprehension.
Insults are neither appreciated nor necessary.

-it was he who posted the 2nd Oracle/Apprentice plan. While he has not kept on about this plan, like a couple other people, I seem to recall that this idea was thrown out there once the discussion of the other plan had seemed to die off. This cause further plan discussion, including the divide and conquer plan rearing its head again. I admit I was caught up in this discussion again, as were other people. IMO I believe it is time to STFU about great plans to solve this game once and for all. It ain't going to happen. We have had 2 plans proposed both shown to be severely flawd, and a mammoth post or 2 from someone who also loves the idea of a cohesive plan.
You seriously expect me or anyone else to read these statements and conclude that it was the timing of the plan and not the plan itself as the reason for your vote? The first statement is "it was he who posted the 2nd Oracle/Apprentice plan." The only part that even hints at timing is the last clause of the second sentence, "I seem to recall that this idea was thrown out there once the discussion of the other plan had seemed to die off." 'seem' You expect me to believe that you're voting based on what you seem to recall? You didn't go back and check?

My reading comprehension is fine, thank you. If you wanted to state DiggitCamara's timing as the reason for your vote, you would have said something like, 'DiggitCamara proposed the second plan when discussion was finally dieing out.'

Nice try at trying to change the meaning of your words after the fact though.

Blaster Master
06-29-2007, 02:03 PM
Two Days left. A total of 22 Votes.

sachertorte (3) - SnakesCatLady, MonkeyMensch, fluiddruid
Autolycus (2) - Fretful Porpentine, ArizonaTeach
Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison (2) - MadTheSwine, Zeriel
Hal Briston (2) - Kyrie Eleison, zuma
MadTheSwine (2) - storyteller0910, HazelNutCoffee
NAF1138 (2) - FlyingCowOfDoom, Autolycus
Zuma (2) - Malacandra, Captain Klutz
ArizonaTeach (1) - NAF1138
DiggitCamara (1) - Queuing
Idle Thoughts (1) - Pasta
Malacandra (1) - Pleonast
Pasta (1) - Idle Thoughts
Pleonast (1) - Hockey Monkey
Queuing (1) - sachertorte

ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
06-29-2007, 02:09 PM
Every game is a completely unique mix of rules, experience levels, observations (and sometimes baggage) from past games, and last but not least...individual brains and personalities. All of these moving parts require some getting used to, and nowhere is that more obvious than during Day 1.

As has been repeatedly stated elsewhere, the investigators are in no way required to comply with any discussion/conclusion/debate regarding their roles. There has been a lot of such discussion, by many people, and it is only Day 1. Imho, Day 1 is WAY too early to consider repeated commentary on apparently pet topics as a suspicious pattern.

And frankly, I have to wonder just how much insight into the nuances (particularly the limitations) of these roles we've gained so early in the game as a direct result of these conversations?

I certainly have learned and realized quite a bit, and I don't think I'm the only one. And before anyone comes chiming in with a "Exactly! And what if you're scum?!? That means the scum is learning too!! Oh noes!!" just know that I'm talking purely from a role-understanding perspective, something which we ALL need for ALL roles in order to have a good, fun game.

Enough with the sanity, let's move onto the paranoia...

Vote Kyrie Eleison

Why? Because of my gut reaction to some of Clockwork Jackal's early comments (not enough on their own to comment on them at the time, but were included in my decision), and this exchange:

If memory serves, I was at least partially involved in that M3 "early game" random voting conversation as well, as a town player, and I leaned more towards Blaster's views both then and now.

Ymmv on all of what I'm about to say.

Mine is not an "all or nothing" perspective. There are subtleties that need to be examined.

Random voting vs random FOSing: I personally have a higher comfort level with random FOSing during the first Day than random voting. Why? Because a FOS cannot be the gateway drug to a bandwagon, whereas a vote can be.

Ice-breaking: Poking sticks at people prompts them to post and gives us all fodder for actual analysis. As of typing this post, we've had at least one allegedly random vote, and I guess what you might call an allegedly traditional vote ( at Diggit), neither of which bother me much, aside from the bandwagon potential that they carry.

Always remember to interpret all things with an extra dose of skepticism: It is indeed possible and probable that the scum will be voting and FOSing and trying to say that such things were random. It is also possible and probable that the scum will pounce on opportunities provided by allegedly random selections made by others, whether they were legitimately random or not.

All that being said, I think that the random topic discussion is healthy, as is (informed) use and interpretation of truly random votes by those who are not confident in any other selection method.

Eh? Would that the scum were silly enough to actually jump aboard a wagon with such weak justification. How simple it would be to detect them! The object is to dunk cultists, not to save believers. Bring on the bandwagon!

Scum certainly aren't the only ones capable or likely to jump on bandwagons against townies. And I was not advocating against bandwagons...or random selections. I was, in fact, pointing out that one variety of random selection (FOSing) carries with it less inherent risk for town than the other random option (voting), especially during the early Days when odds are already skewed towards us dunking town.

...

This just strikes me as a scummy hit-and-run out of context twisting of my words, and it gets you my vote.