Mafia Watch-Along Thread - NO SPOILERS! [FORBIDDEN TO LIVE PLAYERS]

Thread Games
181

I’m not sure if intentional lurking is so much a problem as overall lack of participation (and real life busyness) is a problem. The underlying truth is, lurking is an excellent way to avoid being lynched. If you don’t say anything, or much, there is little reason to lynch you. Most accept that intentionally lurking is bad form, but unintentional lurking is harder to monitor.

In the past we have had discussions about lurking as a viable strategy. Some might initially see it as a ‘fair’ strategy. But usually when explained and modifying ‘fair’ to include time invested in the game rather than ‘fair outcome’, everyone realizes why scum lurking is a bad thing as it ruins the fun-factor of the game and is unfair to those that put honest time into playing the game.

182

Personally, I still think that intentional lurking is a perfectly legitimate Scum tactic, if you can get away with it. And that it’s therefore Town’s responsibility to make sure that you can’t get away with it. Though the moderator should also set rules for dealing with a player who literally isn’t participating at all.

I’ve never intentionally lurked, myself, but that’s just because I don’t think I specifically would be able to get away with it. And the same is likely true of many other veteran players. When someone is known for active participation, dropping out of sight gets noticed.

183

Yeah, I see. This game, I guess I had more against lurking not being discouraged, rather than the act of lurking itself. But then again, I see no reason how anyone can’t throw a couple of posts at least daily, even if you’re busy. But my experience have solely been face-to-face, where it’s possible to more or less force people to interact with you. This was a very confusing and highly interesting game for me, as I’ve realised I’m much better at reading people then and there rather than going through permanent records over and over again.

But with that said, I’m very much looking forward to see the outcome, as it has been great fun and full of tension. I’d love to play with you guys again some day, but I will probably have to modify how I make myself appear and try to be more coherent in both behaviour and language.

184

I don’t think you did poorly at all, plumpudding. It hurts to get lynched, because you feel like you’ve done something wrong, but honestly that’s just how this works. I’ve only twice survived to the very end of the game.

Your death is as valuable as your life, because it helps town further decipher the lies and machinations of the scum team. And I think you did pretty good for your first game!

185

The argument is that it puts the players into an odd situation where they metaphorically need to toss a coin to decide whether or not to lynch. If the game is going to be decided by a coin toss, then it removes the point of the game. We might as well just coin toss at the beginning of the game and be done with it.

If I knew someone intentionally lurked as a tactic, I would never play with that person.

186

Thank you, I appreciate it, but I think there’s always a lot of room for improvement in this game. Even if I feel I could have done more this game, I have gained a lot by at least trying. So all in all, I’m happy to have played and kudos to everyone, both dead or still in the game.

187

Well, I think the ultimate solution is three-pronged:

First, the moderator should remove anyone who’s not participating at all. This covers players who forgot they even signed up, players who got hit by a bus, whatever.
Second, if a player finds that they can’t put in the needed amount of time to play properly, but is not completely absent (to trigger 1), they should request to be removed from the game.
Third, if the Town find that someone’s not contributing meaningfully, then they should lynch that player. Assuming that 1 and 2 are followed, this could only be someone deliberately laying low, and so it wouldn’t be a coin flip after all.

Of course, if all three of these were in place, the end result would be nobody lurking at all, which is of course good for the game.

I’m very reluctant to put in a rule, written or unwritten, against intentional lurking, because it’s a continuum: There’s very little difference between lurking and laying low, or between laying low and posting inconsequentially, and so on, and I think that trying to avoid attention is one of the fundamental Scum strategies, inherent to the game.

188

That’s seems reasonable to me, I just didn’t feel that being the case this game. I also think a culture around this, people being encouraged not to lurk for whatever reason, would be good for games both around here and in general.

189

I’m hoping that I get a nice turnout for my game following this one. It may have a few things different from what Dopers are used to playing, but nothing to get freaked out about.

Overall, I just want it to be fun and have as much participation as possible. If you sign up, please participate. I don’t want any players signing up just to “humor the new guy.” If you can play and want to play, then sign up. Simple as that.

190

If I can play, I don’t think you need to worry about my participation.

Some of those posts were even good, too. Probably. :slight_smile:

191

I’m in, if you’ll have me. In Norway we have a saying: “Blod på tann”, or “Blood on tooth”, meaning you get hungry for more after the first bite. Even if I’m busy, I’ll have the opportunity to post several times a day.

192

Not a problem, Plum. You’re in, as far as I’m concerned.

193

I disagree with this. My lurking this past game was about a 50/50 split of laying low and legitimately have no time to keep up with the game. During Day 2 I was completely unable to even read through the thread, much less make any kind of detailed post.

194

Yeah, but then I think you’re too busy to play mafia.

195

Quite possibly.

196

Mafia is a big commitment, of both time and effort. It is a very demanding game and if you just don’t have time to put in that time and effort, it must surely ruin the fun for you and it also ruins the fun for everyone who either has time or makes time. It might also take a spot away from someone who has time to play. For example, my schedule for this semester consists of ten to twelve hours of school every day apart from Sundays. I’m pretty packed, but I’ll still manage to make time in the evening to keep updated and post a few posts. I could also bring my computer to school to read and post during lunch breaks. Maybe I’ll read a bit while drinking my morning coffee before going to school.

Not everyone are free to do this and then I think they should consider not signing up. There are several shorter versions of Mafia, like The Resistance, which would be more fitting for a person with little time to spare. Invite four friends over and play The Resistance for a few rounds, twenty to thirty minutes per round, instead of commiting to an eight week Mafia game. I’ve had a few bar games of The resistance and they are great fun. Sometimes people will come up to us and ask why a bunch of angry people are yelling and accusing eachother of treachery, and some have even joined in on a later round.

All that basically boils down to: If you don’t have time, don’t sign. There are many ways to get your Mafia fix. You even have One Night Ultimate Werewolf if you’re really really busy.

197

I disagree with this. It is not the best reason at all. At best it can be used as corroborating evidence. And if you’re dead certain, it isn’t enough to just say so, you need a real case to support it. Thorough analysis of votes, posts, timestamps, stats and genuine attempts at reading peoples intentions and motivations, is all better ways to find scum than meta, and a lot more constructive.

Knowing that **Chronos **has been helpful scum before only proves just that, that he has been helpful scum before. It doesn’t say anything about his alignment this game. Basing suspicion solely on how **Chronos **has behaved before also undermines the information **Chronos **betrays about himself in his posts and could have prompted people to instead focus on meta rather than actual content. I can see reasons bringing in meta if you have a strong case based on reasonable suspicions, but Chronos playing as he always plays is not indicative of him being scum *or *town, it’s only indicative of him paying.

I found Septimus’ suspicion unfounded based on what **Chronos **actually posted, and pretty unsuitable in a game where most players knew nothing of eachother and where newbies might have taken an experienced player’s word about another experienced player as gold. There are situations where meta like this might become valuable, but it wasn’t at that point in the game(Day One, really?) and it was unnecessary to bring it up. A point in my favour: **Septimus **was wrong.

There have only been a few times where I’ve been certain of another player’s alignment based only on earlier behaviour. But that player is incapable of lying. Most people can lie, and so can modify their behaviour to suit their role. Most people will also change their play to an extent anyway, as you always learn something from this game.

198

I’ve had arguments about meta before. Essentially, meta becomes everything a particular person doesn’t like in the game. Meta is an opinion, not a fact.

Come on now. We all know that a single point of data doesn’t prove anything. Septimus would certainly be wrong to point to one piece of evidence as definitive proof that Chronos was scum, but on Day One it isn’t so terrible a reason to vote for someone. I’m pretty sure buried somewhere in this thread are notes on how I was certain that Chronos was Town and that septimus was wrong about Chronos. But septimus was not wrong to apply knowledge about Chronos to forming an opinion on him.

As a counter example, we had strong suspicion of JSexton pretty much immediately because his behavior was BS compared to what we would expect from a Townie JSexton. That’s how the game is played, and I can’t possibly imagine ignoring what I know about JSexton or Chronos or whomever when forming opinions and conclusions about alignment.

We even noted in this thread that with so many new players, the game is more difficult since there isn’t a basis for judgement.

199

I have to state for the record, I am not against talking meta. Meta can become very valuable. But you have to use it right, be aware of under what circumstances you use it, and it has to be convincing.

sachertorte:

Of course it doesn’t prove anything. But it does show how, depending on the circumstances, solely or heavily relying on meta might be misleading. Meta can be helpful, but at that point it really wasn’t. It’s good to have a hunch, so long as you acknowledge it’s *just *a hunch. If your hunch leads you to find more compelling reasons for suspicion, that’s great. But a hunch alone should not be enough to lynch someone. We had so much going on Day One, that Septimus’ hunch, and how he shared it, looked misleading to me. He threw it out right at the start of the game, continued with it most of the Day, while never addressing any criticism of it. Add to that a bunch of new and confused players who have no way to form an opinion of how any of you have played before, bringing meta in at that point was pretty unnecessary.

So, meta can be good, if it is shared alongside an actual case or is shown to have some merit. Without it, it’s pretty much a coin toss and Septimus, or any player’s, say-so doesn’t change that.

Anyway, I think **Septimus **harping on **Chronos **was a wrong play, that’s all. No biggie. I also didn’t want to have **Septimus **lynched, and certainely not for that alone. Like Septimus, I had my eyes on the wrong target for the wrong reasons.

It was funny in a tragic way, that when **Septimus **claimed, for a second I thought “Ah, sure scum move!” before my heart started just racing and racing! Those few seconds felt like an hour, and then I started typing and typing and typing. Then I saw Cygnus42’s post and realised my time was up and I had failed. At least it more or less convinced me that **Cygnus42 **is town. I think he was in the exactly same position as me, only a bit closer to pulling it off.

Septimus, if you had given us a little more time, I might have been able to save you by getting myself NK’d. I tried to get a convincing counter-claim together, but I just didn’t have enough time. It might have killed you anyway and instead put a lot of suspicion on me, but if convincing enough and done at the right time, it could have made the wolves unsure enough to either NK me or someone else entirely. I’m sorry I didn’t manage!

200

A counter-claim wouldn’t have worked. You might have fooled Townies, but that would just have lead to septimus being lynched anyway. You couldn’t have fooled the Scum, though, because they knew septimus wasn’t Scum, and so knew he was telling the truth. You might have confused them for a while, but it would have been clarified very quickly when you both got lynched for no reason, to the detriment of Town and great benefit of Scum. Genuine Townies should almost never lie, and the exceptions to that rule are so few that you might as well just cut out the “almost”.

And I’ll repeat here what I said at the time in the game: It was perfectly true, fair, and relevant for septimus to point out that I’m helpful as Scum. What it was not, was a case against me. Some people were saying that they were sure I was Town based on my play, and as septimus pointed out, that certainty was a mistake (yes, I actually was Town, but people shouldn’t have been certain of that). But there’s a difference between not being certain that I’m Town, and being certain that I’m Scum.