That's great in theory, except there is a tangible benefit to being investigated in this case that might draw people to grab attention. And I'm pretty sure that benefit could be enough to screw us over.
Tordeck's explanation makes sense to me. I'd actually had the same hunch, but decided there were plenty of resources to find information about Mafia online, and that there are reasons besides being scum (though they aren't necessarily the most honorable in general, they don't make you scum in a specific game) to hide one's experience. Hell, there are even arguably town reasons to hide your experience-if you're the best mafia player ever, you really don't want the night kill roles knowing that, do you?
And yeah, Rhand, sorry I can't be of more help, pfft. My other games have all been scum.
In order:
- Unlike Tom, I'm focusing on solving this game and not just roleplaying a computer.
- Since killing the SK lets the town win?
- Would you do that?
- Since I have my honour and pride. I want to win by catching the SK instead of defecting. Otherwise, I would've defected already.
- Why does it seem super scummy?
- Nope.
- Yeah, since I totes have power over RNG.
I have few questions for you: Why aren't you scumhunting? Why are you so obsessed over the alt. wincon? Why not just start lynching people at random if we start removing people from PoE-pool by random?
@Everyone: Do you agree that we should allow a single player among us defect tonight? If you end up being chosen to defect (by whatever means), will you defect? If you end up not being chosen, will cooperate?
Tom's goal was in fact solving this game. It seems like you're locked (by 'honor and pride' perhaps) into only considering the game from a more traditional mafia perspective. What Tom suggests basically trades out an extra day, maybe two, of conversation for something of an investigative role, while also trying to make sure that some number of town players win even if the entire town doesn't do so.
As for why it seems super scummy, that's because you're advocating for us playing a game of six villagers and a serial killer as opposed to prisoners using what powers they have. If your argument is that prisoner is actually weaker than villager (in this count, of course-I'm not asking you to argue that a lone prisoner is weaker than a lone villager as that's obviously not the case) I'd love to hear the reason you think so; if not, we should be making use of what little power we do have as a town.
As for your questions, I do think that we should allow a single player to defect, and if I'm chosen I will certainly do so-considering that if we come to that conclusion, we'll be following Tom's strategy, and to not defect would result in my being lynched the next day for being the serial killer.
As for the whole seven player winning thing, it might depend on the exact intricacies of the setup-but as far as I can tell the SK doesn't have to kill each night, and wins not when they have control of the vote but when they're the last player standing. Therefore, if all players were to claim, the prisoners could defect one by one while the serial killer does nothing until each player is a victor.
Interestingly, if one assumed this is more a social experiment on Meggido's a part than actually a mafia game, one might conclude that this is what Meggido wants out of the game-but I'm assuming they'd rather have a game of mafia.
Sheesh, I might have to stick to micros for a while or something now that I'm back on forum mafia-I'd forgotten the sheer number of posts you get to in larger games. It's a lot more information than I'm used to taking in at once for a mafia game, especially as I've taught myself to rely on my gut a bit more often than a player really should when this amount of info is so readily available. Stuff like that level of wagon analysis kind of blows my mind.
That all being said, I do have a couple of things to address, and some of my own thoughts to add (though obviously those are going somewhat hand in hand with Proph asking me who I thought was scum.)
@Rhand: I don't know how much use it will be as it's a five player game in which we chose to not lynch on the only meaningful day, but it's also my only town game on forum mafia. Here you go.
@Proph: My first thought (and the one that's the biggest cop out, but don't worry, there's more) is that considering the sheer number of low-activity players we currently have, at least one of them is scum. I don't think any of them (with the possible exception of Killjoy) are actively lurking, but statistically, one of Killjoy/D_V/Tordeck/Hunger is scum. The only one that feels at all notable out of the four is Tordeck, for his 'not random vote' that had no immediate reasoning-but I don't think that vote alone is an indicator of town or scum behavior, and might have even just been an attempt to stir up interaction/conversation when he knew he was going to have a busy weekend.
As for the rest? I'm still a bit fixated on JD. Interestingly enough, upon reread of his page 1 play, it didn't feel nearly as scummy as I had first thought-but the glaring issue to me is, despite having plenty of page 2 posts including a wagon analysis that doubtlessly required a somewhat thorough reread, he avoided answering Hunger's question that might have provided us some insight as to how we might expect him to play.
Atog's signal to noise ratio seems particularly low to me, which makes me somewhat suspicious of him as well, but I expect that if he does come back with an analysis of mine we will hopefully see more content. There's not much to be added that Rhand hasn't already said besides reiterating the idea (since nobody seemed to respond to it last time I brought it up) that it's possible he was distancing himself from Tom with the page 1 spat.
Lastly-though I feel less strongly about it than the other two-is Tom. His interaction with me on page 2 straddles the line between where posts should start to be all content, and if it *is* content it's buddying up to me, something I don't think a town player would do. Also, I don't like his analysis of Proph, considering the games he grabbed to contrast with were town games in which Proph replaced in. Analyzing an incomplete meta and then trying to use that as evidence of somebody being scummy seems like either a scum play or a bad town play to me.
An interesting quick of the setup-if we were interested in removing any degree of fun from the game and just maximizing the number of winning players, all seven players could win the game. I'm not going to actually suggest we do that since we're here to play mafia not make Megiddo waste their time and effort on making a setup only for us to not really use it, but I found the thought amusing.
I'll poke through Tom's math and add my own thoughts beyond the above (something that occurred to me a couple of days ago, just wasn't going to bring it up in the signup thread)when I'm awake tomorrow; for now I need to crash.
@Rhand: I was worried at first after seeing your vote on me that you weren't actually offering up anything of substance for me to talk about, but I'm glad that wasn't the case. Though honestly I'd almost be inclined to ask if *you* natively spoke English after wondering if my sentence should include an if-there's no need to put on there. Saying I don't know somebody is town is 100% accurate in the case of every player but myself; it comes off as stronger language than including the if to emphasize the fact that I can't necessarily trust anybody else.
You also didn't answer my question of *how* I was overexplaining, simply reiterated that you believed I was (and, granted, did add some substance to that in the idea that talking about NL is a safe topic for scum, which I'll grant-but that only points to Tom and JD as much as it does to me, correct? All three of us have more or less dropped the subject in its entirety since, besides in discussions of the train on JD.)
I've never heard of guessing at somebody's role being either a social faux pas or a town misplay (or a scum tell, but I doubt that's what you're getting at there) but I'll keep it in mind going forward. And as for not reacting to the rest of his post, it's because there's not much to react to-he's correct that being overly defensive is a minor scum tell, but it's also a human reaction to have. Furthermore, directly reacting to it would have only led those who were already, in my opinion without much reasoning (that is to say Proph previously, not the stuff you have up there, as you clearly have reasoning in your post) to use it as evidence of me being more overly defensive should they have attempted to run me up.
As for the rest of your post, I think you're drastically mislabeling a willingness to cast the damning vote on oneself when one is confident it won't result in one's death as town mentality. Scum can say a lot of different things to make them seem town, the least of which is saying they're willing to perform an action with literally zero consequences.
I'm a little suspicious now that we have one confirmed vote-metalmind. In the books, there was always a pair (push and pull, seek and hide, etc). It's possible to have a second, opposite, power (one is a double voter and one nullifies a vote against them or something like that).
We don't see Killjoy and Hunger voting yet either. But you're the only one playing games (I would vote but I'm not going to on principle). In light of JDs claim, and confirmation, I'd like to see if you vote is counted.
That's a fair request. Not why I'm not wanting to put my vote down, but here you go:
Vote: Huntzilla
Votecount
(Before anybody tries to read anything into the target, I'm just putting it the same place JD tried to, I'll unvote once we have a count.)
@Hunt Though I think it could be either a town or scum role, a role that switched between no votes and double voting by some sort of mechanic seems plausible to me for this setup.
That seems like the sort of meta that might let you more or less coast for a day or two, but if you both seem confident in him I certainly won't press the issue for now. Obviously if the train on JD ends up going anywhere-or one on anyone else for that matter-it would be best to make sure he has a chance to elaborate before we move on.
@Proph: Wrt JD, why do you seem to immediately believe his claim? Furthermore, even if the no vote claim is accurate, why does that make you believe he's town?
It's not that I didn't believe you about unvoting him-it's that just as a rule of thumb I'd rather not commit my vote to paper over somebody else doing so. The fact of the matter is I know that I'm town, I don't know that you are.
@jd: Your first two posts were exclusively about the idea of NLing. All because you weren't the first to mention it doesn't mean you didn't bring it up, and I think to argue otherwise is to argue semantics, not substance. No sensible reading of my statement would imply that both of you were the first to mention it considering this is all in one thread.
@Everyone: Is it just accepted that Tordeck will come in here, vote without saying anything, and be able to go off on his way? I don't know much about the way he plays-the two games I've been in with him were extremely short-but the fact I'm the only one to have brought it up seems weird to me.
Would you vote for jd if I promise to unvote him after you vote?
I don't want to pass up relevant wagon information this early in the game.
I would not, but if it helps with the information you want, you can consider my vote on him for all purposes but a willingness to immediately lynch him. While I don't trust him as town, I don't want him lynched until we've had more discussion.
And yeah, Rhand, sorry I can't be of more help, pfft. My other games have all been scum.
Tom's goal was in fact solving this game. It seems like you're locked (by 'honor and pride' perhaps) into only considering the game from a more traditional mafia perspective. What Tom suggests basically trades out an extra day, maybe two, of conversation for something of an investigative role, while also trying to make sure that some number of town players win even if the entire town doesn't do so.
As for why it seems super scummy, that's because you're advocating for us playing a game of six villagers and a serial killer as opposed to prisoners using what powers they have. If your argument is that prisoner is actually weaker than villager (in this count, of course-I'm not asking you to argue that a lone prisoner is weaker than a lone villager as that's obviously not the case) I'd love to hear the reason you think so; if not, we should be making use of what little power we do have as a town.
As for your questions, I do think that we should allow a single player to defect, and if I'm chosen I will certainly do so-considering that if we come to that conclusion, we'll be following Tom's strategy, and to not defect would result in my being lynched the next day for being the serial killer.
As for the whole seven player winning thing, it might depend on the exact intricacies of the setup-but as far as I can tell the SK doesn't have to kill each night, and wins not when they have control of the vote but when they're the last player standing. Therefore, if all players were to claim, the prisoners could defect one by one while the serial killer does nothing until each player is a victor.
Interestingly, if one assumed this is more a social experiment on Meggido's a part than actually a mafia game, one might conclude that this is what Meggido wants out of the game-but I'm assuming they'd rather have a game of mafia.
That all being said, I do have a couple of things to address, and some of my own thoughts to add (though obviously those are going somewhat hand in hand with Proph asking me who I thought was scum.)
@Rhand: I don't know how much use it will be as it's a five player game in which we chose to not lynch on the only meaningful day, but it's also my only town game on forum mafia. Here you go.
@Proph: My first thought (and the one that's the biggest cop out, but don't worry, there's more) is that considering the sheer number of low-activity players we currently have, at least one of them is scum. I don't think any of them (with the possible exception of Killjoy) are actively lurking, but statistically, one of Killjoy/D_V/Tordeck/Hunger is scum. The only one that feels at all notable out of the four is Tordeck, for his 'not random vote' that had no immediate reasoning-but I don't think that vote alone is an indicator of town or scum behavior, and might have even just been an attempt to stir up interaction/conversation when he knew he was going to have a busy weekend.
As for the rest? I'm still a bit fixated on JD. Interestingly enough, upon reread of his page 1 play, it didn't feel nearly as scummy as I had first thought-but the glaring issue to me is, despite having plenty of page 2 posts including a wagon analysis that doubtlessly required a somewhat thorough reread, he avoided answering Hunger's question that might have provided us some insight as to how we might expect him to play.
Atog's signal to noise ratio seems particularly low to me, which makes me somewhat suspicious of him as well, but I expect that if he does come back with an analysis of mine we will hopefully see more content. There's not much to be added that Rhand hasn't already said besides reiterating the idea (since nobody seemed to respond to it last time I brought it up) that it's possible he was distancing himself from Tom with the page 1 spat.
Lastly-though I feel less strongly about it than the other two-is Tom. His interaction with me on page 2 straddles the line between where posts should start to be all content, and if it *is* content it's buddying up to me, something I don't think a town player would do. Also, I don't like his analysis of Proph, considering the games he grabbed to contrast with were town games in which Proph replaced in. Analyzing an incomplete meta and then trying to use that as evidence of somebody being scummy seems like either a scum play or a bad town play to me.
I'll poke through Tom's math and add my own thoughts beyond the above (something that occurred to me a couple of days ago, just wasn't going to bring it up in the signup thread)when I'm awake tomorrow; for now I need to crash.
You also didn't answer my question of *how* I was overexplaining, simply reiterated that you believed I was (and, granted, did add some substance to that in the idea that talking about NL is a safe topic for scum, which I'll grant-but that only points to Tom and JD as much as it does to me, correct? All three of us have more or less dropped the subject in its entirety since, besides in discussions of the train on JD.)
I've never heard of guessing at somebody's role being either a social faux pas or a town misplay (or a scum tell, but I doubt that's what you're getting at there) but I'll keep it in mind going forward. And as for not reacting to the rest of his post, it's because there's not much to react to-he's correct that being overly defensive is a minor scum tell, but it's also a human reaction to have. Furthermore, directly reacting to it would have only led those who were already, in my opinion without much reasoning (that is to say Proph previously, not the stuff you have up there, as you clearly have reasoning in your post) to use it as evidence of me being more overly defensive should they have attempted to run me up.
As for the rest of your post, I think you're drastically mislabeling a willingness to cast the damning vote on oneself when one is confident it won't result in one's death as town mentality. Scum can say a lot of different things to make them seem town, the least of which is saying they're willing to perform an action with literally zero consequences.
Also, GJ, looks like you missed Tom's vote change a couple posts up.
That's a fair request. Not why I'm not wanting to put my vote down, but here you go:
Vote: Huntzilla
Votecount
(Before anybody tries to read anything into the target, I'm just putting it the same place JD tried to, I'll unvote once we have a count.)
@Hunt Though I think it could be either a town or scum role, a role that switched between no votes and double voting by some sort of mechanic seems plausible to me for this setup.
@Proph: Wrt JD, why do you seem to immediately believe his claim? Furthermore, even if the no vote claim is accurate, why does that make you believe he's town?
@jd: Your first two posts were exclusively about the idea of NLing. All because you weren't the first to mention it doesn't mean you didn't bring it up, and I think to argue otherwise is to argue semantics, not substance. No sensible reading of my statement would imply that both of you were the first to mention it considering this is all in one thread.
@Everyone: Is it just accepted that Tordeck will come in here, vote without saying anything, and be able to go off on his way? I don't know much about the way he plays-the two games I've been in with him were extremely short-but the fact I'm the only one to have brought it up seems weird to me.
I would not, but if it helps with the information you want, you can consider my vote on him for all purposes but a willingness to immediately lynch him. While I don't trust him as town, I don't want him lynched until we've had more discussion.