Mafia: Conspiracy 2: The Cabal Strikes Back! [Game Over]

The Game Room
541

[QUOTE=CatInASuit]
The next steps are as follows assuming everyone role claims on Day 1.

All claims are still going to have to be taken at face value, just as in every other game of Mafia that has been played on this board.

There is still plenty of room for post analysis, vote analysis and hunches in trying to find the scum.

When someone is being pressured, they will already have revealed their role, it will be up to the players, if they feel that the person is scummy enough, to ignore their roleclaim and lynch then, or to back off and vote for someone else.

Strangely enough that happens in all the games that have occured so far.

What it does, is prevent the scum from picking the optimal role claim to fit their position at any point in time. The choice they make on Day 1 is the role they are going to have to live up to through the rest of the game. The scum have even less information to make the optimal choice now than the town.

If they cannot perform as their role, they are going to get caught. Why? Because if a player has lied about their roleclaim, they are going to have to justify to the town why they are changing it and then probably proving otherwise.

I still think people are only looking at the short term and not the full game when looking at this idea.
[/QUOTE]

Ahh, I think I’m beginning to understand. I had assumed that you would use the role claims as the basis for scum-finding, but what you’re really proposing is just getting everyone on the record and then playing mostly as usual. Very interesting. Let me ask you this: Do you think my “simulation” is close to a probable scenario? If so, one thing I noticed was that if scum play it safe and Town are mostly truthful, some powerful roles are going to be exposed to scum kills quite easily. In my example it was Coroner and Seer. That seems to be a fairly major potential problem. How would you avoid that?

While it’s a more compelling theory than I originally thought, I still think that it would be a complete mess in actuality, as brewha explained. Although I disagree that it’s a waste of time to talk about - we’ve got plenty of time left in the Day. So, I’m not quite ready to go on the record yet, but I am leaning against it. I might be convinced otherwise if my objections are satisfied.

542

[QUOTE=Oredigger77]
Wow, this is why I support the lynch the lurker strategy. First of all the last time that Pollux posted was at the end of night one and he was complaining about how much we talked during the night(#378) but now he didn’t expect so much discussion during the Day/Night. Maybe he forgot.

Secondly Nanook’s slip took place during Night 1 not during the Day so if he’s only read the Day as stated when did he read the initial post?

Third, making the game too easy??? Seriously WFT the point is to win this is the equivalent of saying that we should lynch scum that admit but instead keep looking.

Finally, what is a place holder vote does that mean your just going to leave it there until someone finds a reason for voting for Ro0sh? Is it holding your place in line? I dislike almost every part of this post and I’m leaving my lynch the lurker strategy until I get some questions answered.
[/QUOTE]

Your second argument against **Pollux Oil **seems like a reach to me. While Nanook’s slip may have taken place during the Night, it has garnered him a ton of votes and discussion toDay. Aside maybe from the mass role claim, he’s been the #1 topic of conversation. If Pollux didn’t read Night One, he could still easily be up to speed on that situation. But actually, he didn’t say he didn’t read Night One, just that he didn’t “fully” read it. You turned that into “if he’s only read the Day as stated,” but he didn’t state that. I don’t like it when players put incorrect words in other players’ mouths.

543

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
Ahh, I think I’m beginning to understand. I had assumed that you would use the role claims as the basis for scum-finding, but what you’re really proposing is just getting everyone on the record and then playing mostly as usual. Very interesting. Let me ask you this: Do you think my “simulation” is close to a probable scenario? If so, one thing I noticed was that if scum play it safe and Town are mostly truthful, some powerful roles are going to be exposed to scum kills quite easily. In my example it was Coroner and Seer. That seems to be a fairly major potential problem. How would you avoid that?

[/QUOTE]

I think your simulation is quite reasonable. However, I would expect an awful lot of Scotsmen around the town.

The Coroner and the Seer can easily confirm their roles if they are challenged from the extra information they will have gained as they go on. A scum would be unable to do this on a consistent basis. What they claim up front will be to cover what they are doing and they only need to reveal themselves with their data if they are going to be lynched.

What I am looking to do, as has already been said, is to nail the scum on the first Day to a large lie and then force them to play through it. I am not looking to break the game in this way, but set up an advantage in the end game for the town.

544

[QUOTE=CatInASuit]
I think your simulation is quite reasonable. However, I would expect an awful lot of Scotsmen around the town.

The Coroner and the Seer can easily confirm their roles if they are challenged from the extra information they will have gained as they go on. A scum would be unable to do this on a consistent basis. What they claim up front will be to cover what they are doing and they only need to reveal themselves with their data if they are going to be lynched.
[/QUOTE]

OK, so you would expect them to claim something else. In my scenario, I had them telling the truth. That will lead to a lot of Scotsmen, indeed! Do you like haggis? :slight_smile: Would you expect any of the Town to tell the truth or do you think it would be a Mass Role Lie? My simulation had a real Scotsman, Magician, Warlock, Vicar, Vigilante and Witchdoctor claiming truthfully (along with fake ones, of course).

[QUOTE=CatInASuit]
What I am looking to do, as has already been said, is to nail the scum on the first Day to a large lie and then force them to play through it. I am not looking to break the game in this way, but set up an advantage in the end game for the town.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I get it now and definitely see the positives. But I’m not sure it’s compelling enough to overcome the negatives.

545

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
OK, so you would expect them to claim something else. In my scenario, I had them telling the truth. That will lead to a lot of Scotsmen, indeed! Do you like haggis? :slight_smile: Would you expect any of the Town to tell the truth or do you think it would be a Mass Role Lie? My simulation had a real Scotsman, Magician, Warlock, Vicar, Vigilante and Witchdoctor claiming truthfully (along with fake ones, of course).

[/QUOTE]

I’m not going to tell the town what to claim, but I would expect something to that effect. :slight_smile:

546

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
Your second argument against **Pollux Oil **seems like a reach to me…
[/QUOTE]
He made four of them. No comment on those?

547

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
Your second argument against **Pollux Oil **seems like a reach to me. While Nanook’s slip may have taken place during the Night, it has garnered him a ton of votes and discussion toDay. Aside maybe from the mass role claim, he’s been the #1 topic of conversation. If Pollux didn’t read Night One, he could still easily be up to speed on that situation. But actually, he didn’t say he didn’t read Night One, just that he didn’t “fully” read it. You turned that into “if he’s only read the Day as stated,” but he didn’t state that. I don’t like it when players put incorrect words in other players’ mouths.
[/QUOTE]

This, plus the fact that I think that the data from Oredigger’s original “lurker list” was manipulated to the point of meaninglessness, is causing me to keep an eye on him as well. It’s certainly not enough to take a vote off of Nanook, but I think Oredigger should be examined as well. I’m not a huge fan of lynch the lurker on Day One anyway, because I don’t think lurkers are any more likely to be scum than they are to be town this early in the game. Later in the game it might be an effective strategy, but now it just seems like a way to get a vote down without much accountability.

548

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
He made four of them. No comment on those?
[/QUOTE]

No, should I have?

549

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
No, should I have?
[/QUOTE]
I just found it odd that Oredigger made four arguments, and you only responded to one of them. I just found it odd that you only responded to one of them. The subconscious vibe I got was that you agreed with the other three arguments. I wanted to be sure if that was your intention or not?

I disagree with DrainBead when she says a Day 1 vote can be placed with no accountability somehow. IMHO, on Day 1, barring outstanding circumstances, one reason is as good as any other for getting a vote in.

550

[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
I’m not a huge fan of lynch the lurker on Day One anyway, because I don’t think lurkers are any more likely to be scum than they are to be town this early in the game. Later in the game it might be an effective strategy, but now it just seems like a way to get a vote down without much accountability.
[/QUOTE]

What kind of metric would you use to start voting on Day one? As a conversation starter, or a prod early in the Day it makes sense, and has at least some reasoning behind it. Barring any slips, or significantly dodgy comments, it seems like a place to start. Better then random voting as far as accountability goes. Leaving a vote on a lynch the lurker target is probably something to watch for, and anyone who ends the Day with a vote based on lynch the lurker is certainly someone to pay attention to.

We’ve had a slip, and a controversial proposal, so staying with a lynch the lurker strategy throughout the Day, would certainly be something to watch. Even more so anyone who opens with a lurker hunt, and doesn’t comment on the issues of the Day.

551

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
I just found it odd that Oredigger made four arguments, and you only responded to one of them. I just found it odd that you only responded to one of them. The subconscious vibe I got was that you agreed with the other three arguments. I wanted to be sure if that was your intention or not?
[/QUOTE]

The second one jumped out at me because he claimed Pollux said something that Pollux didn’t actually say, and that’s a red flag for me, so I wanted to point that out. The other 3 seem reasonable at first blush, but since you ask, I will go back and take a close look at all of them.

[QUOTE=OreDigger77]
Wow, this is why I support the lynch the lurker strategy. First of all the last time that Pollux posted was at the end of night one and he was complaining about how much we talked during the night(#378) but now he didn’t expect so much discussion during the Day/Night. Maybe he forgot.
[/QUOTE]

Without going back to look at #378, this seems a decent catch of a contradiction.

[QUOTE=OreDigger77]
Third, making the game too easy??? Seriously WFT the point is to win this is the equivalent of saying that we should lynch scum that admit but instead keep looking.
[/QUOTE]

This is similar to a point that Diomedes brought up earlier. I agree that it’s the mods job to structure the game and our job to win however we can. However, I took Pollux’s post to mean that if a mass claim would break the game in town’s favor, then it would be no fun. That doesn’t strike me as a particularly scummy position to take, nor do I see it as the equivalent of not voting for a known scum. OreDigger and Dio read it differently, but I would note that Pollux did not say that it would make the game “too easy”, although the implication is there.

[QUOTE=OreDigger77]
Finally, what is a place holder vote does that mean your just going to leave it there until someone finds a reason for voting for Ro0sh? Is it holding your place in line? I dislike almost every part of this post and I’m leaving my lynch the lurker strategy until I get some questions answered.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand the big deal on this one. He placed a random vote so he won’t get modkilled. I don’t like the lurking implications of it, but I don’t see anything really wrong with it.

How’s that? :wink:

552

[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
This, plus the fact that I think that the data from Oredigger’s original “lurker list” was manipulated to the point of meaninglessness, is causing me to keep an eye on him as well.
[/QUOTE]

What is the evidence for the list being manipulated? Could you provide some data to suggest that it was. Not saying you are wrong, but I think it would be good to back that claim up. If you can I’ll certainly agree Oredigger would warrant further investigation.

553

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
I disagree with DrainBead when she says a Day 1 vote can be placed with no accountability somehow. IMHO, on Day 1, barring outstanding circumstances, one reason is as good as any other for getting a vote in.
[/QUOTE]

See, I think “lynch the lurker” is a good way to make a vote that’s essentially meaningless, and can be excused by “Well, I said I’d lynch the lurker, and that person lurked the most…it’s really too bad they turned out Town.” If you have that strategy, you’re going to necessarily pick one person to vote for, based on nothing other than a rigid post count metric (although, see my response to NBC below as to why that didn’t even happen in this case), and not pay attention to any of the arguments being made for or against anyone else.

Well, on his original lurker list, there were three people at the bottom, other than myself and Pollux. One was Roosh, who had an excuse of being out of town, but the others did not have that excuse. Oredigger dismissed those people out of hand and focused on me and Pollux, and I think his reasoning for doing so (he said something about how those two might not have had time to check in or something) was specious. If you’re going to vote for the lurker in an attempt to prod posting, vote for the person who posted the least without having an excuse for doing so, and nobody else. Don’t make the excuses for them, or you’re just manipulating your stats.

I think, especially in this game, we had a LOT to go on to start voting at the beginning of this Day. You’ll notice that nobody really random voted, because we’d already been discussing the game for several pages. In essence, the Lynch the Lurker strategy becomes the closest thing to a random vote we’re going to get in this game.

554

As Night Zero was a bit lengthier than I’m used to, I did just have a momentary “oh…shit?” moment thinking that votes had to be in by noon yesterday.

I am now considering the above schedule as my towel, and I will have it with me always. It is probably not wise (at least for me) to pay too much attention to anything but the posted schedule when trying to determine where we are in any given Day/Night cycle.

555

Vote no mass claim, for reasons I described upthread. I’m off for lunch but will be back with a more substantial post and vote this afternoon after doing some re-reading.

556

I had the same “oh, shit!” moment. These Days are long!

I also don’t like essentially random votes in this game, including “lynch the lurker”. Although it makes for a strange game that I fear night-communicating roles can manipulate, allowing town to talk at Night and starting at Night did remove the dumbest part of the game, where we vote randomly and then argue about voting randomly and then argue about lynching the lurker and etc., etc., etc. We have substance to vote on and should do so.

I still have no vote at this time; Nanook’s “slip” (which may have truly been a slip) doesn’t suggest scum over town, IMHO, and I don’t see Cat’s role claim movement as particularly scummy although I don’t agree with it.

557

On my desk blotter calendar:

Day One Ends Conspiracy

It’s nice and cryptic. :smiley:

558

[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Perhaps I should switch my ‘second place’ vote to you. You don’t want a mass-claim because you think it’s ‘too easy’? Does that mean you think it’s too strong a pro-town move, and you want an even playing field? It’s a mod’s job to make a game resistant to obvious strategies, it’s the players job to attempt to exploit those things. If you really think it’s that pro-town, you should be in favor of doing it. Our objective in this game is to win, not to play fairly.

I just don’t like your reasoning, if that is really what it’s based on. It seems scummy to me.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t like exploiting things or looking for loopholes when I’m playing games. If you find me scummy for that, fine, but it’s a sentiment I’ll hold whether I’m pro-town or pro-scum or pro-myself.

[QUOTE=Oredigger77]
Wow, this is why I support the lynch the lurker strategy. First of all the last time that Pollux posted was at the end of night one and he was complaining about how much we talked during the night(#378) but now he didn’t expect so much discussion during the Day/Night. Maybe he forgot.

Secondly Nanook’s slip took place during Night 1 not during the Day so if he’s only read the Day as stated when did he read the initial post?

Third, making the game too easy??? Seriously WFT the point is to win this is the equivalent of saying that we should lynch scum that admit but instead keep looking.

Finally, what is a place holder vote does that mean your just going to leave it there until someone finds a reason for voting for Ro0sh? Is it holding your place in line? I dislike almost every part of this post and I’m leaving my lynch the lurker strategy until I get some questions answered.
[/QUOTE]

Oh goody! Fun debate time! Let’s see here.

  1. I posted during Night One saying I was surprised that there was so much to read. I wasn’t complaining either. Lots of talking is a lot better than lots of not talking. I then posted again recently saying I was surprised at the amount of talking there was. Wouldn’t it be fair to assume that I was still surprised that there was so much talking? Seriously?

  2. Well excuse me. Getting into semantics here, are we? Nanook’s post with his “slip” was post #366. Pleonast’s post saying it was officially Day One was Post #386. Is it too much to stretch to assume that I read the entire page where Day One started? Sheesh. Next time I’ll be clear and mark exactly which post I started reading at. :stuck_out_tongue:

  3. Maybe the point for you is to win, but the point for me is to stretch my brain and have a little fun. Make some Doper friends. Sure winning’s cool and all that, but this is a game mind you. And a mass claim would basically change the game from sussing out who’s Mafia from what they’re posting to sussing out who lied about their role claims. Less fun.

  4. A placeholder vote means exactly what ShadowFacts said: it’s there so I don’t get modkilled. This was my first post of the Day: a random vote. Yeah it was a little later than other first posts but gimme a break.

:cool:

559

Well, it appers that the roleclaim idea has evolved into intelligent discourse between CatInASuit and ShadowFacts, so I’ll leave off that topic now.
I still don’t see any rhyme or reason behind lynching Nanook. At this point, it seems more like a random lynch, something I’m not down with. Unfortunatley, that means we have to find a better candidate.
Pollux Oil’s post looked scummy. It was definitley made in haste, which makes it more likely to contain slips (even if they’re town slips). I’m not comfortable lynching him at the moment, at least until he checks back in.
While I’m annoyed by Santo Rugger and Diomedes (the ‘agressively push one issue to death’ strategy is one I intensly dislike) I don’t think they’re scummy.

560

[QUOTE=Koldanar]
You can’t see a town motivation for defending people, even on day 1? Take a look at day one in the current Cecilvania. Sach attacked the case against OAOW repeatedly during the first day, as he was sure that the reasonings were weak.

Story is NOT coming around and saying “Oh look, CIAS must be town!” but rather, he does not like the reasons people are using to vote for CIAS. These people are also using the reasoning that he’s rolefishing against Nanook, when clearly he has already asked EVERYONE for their roles, thereby rolefishing everyone already…why would you vote for him asking one person for their role after he has already asked for everyones? Its that reasoning that doesn’t sit with story, and I for one, agree with him on that. It’s a bad, bad case against CIAS… and I don’t agree with his role claim plan right now.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
As far as “defending” and “snuggling” and so on, I say bah and piffle. Pointing out that the arguments against a player are bad arguments does not equate to defending that player. CatinaSuit could well be the scummiest scum who ever scummed; the case against him would still be silly, ill-thought-out, and - possibly - scummy.
[/QUOTE]

I meant to comment on this topic earlier, but it got away from me. One of the things that really frustrated me in Cecilvania was the idea that if you are “defending” someone, you must have Perfect Knowledge Syndrome, and are therefore scum. It happened twice in a row that game – with sachertorte “defending” OAOW, and with me “defending” sach. (OAOW, sach and I were all Town, it turned out). In both cases, sach and I were pointing out the flaws in the arguments being offered, but all it got us was “Well, how do you know he’s Town? You must be scum!” garbage and lots of suspicion.

So I’m on the lookout for this crap and I’m glad Koldanar and storyteller brought it up early. Just because someone points out a flaw in an accusation, does not mean they are “defending” anyone or has PKS.