Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Mafia XII: Bloodbath in Suwalki, a Prelude to WWII; Self-aligned player wins
Topic Started: Oct 14 2009, 09:08 PM (4,001 Views)
Allesandra
Member Avatar
Only Girl Actively Participating in Threads
 *  *  *  *  *
Atticus's post are kind of giving off the vibe that he's a spy or something, by trying to really push for TC to be spy. Plus, he's new at this game still...

Yeah, I'm going to go with him for now.

Vote: Atticus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
By the way, dibs on next game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Vote count

Atticus: 4 (Allesandra, TC, Huesca, Flumes)
TC: 2 (Atticus, Quaon)
No lynch: 2 (Al Araam, NH)
NH: 1 (Nag)

Needed for lynch: 8
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lebowski2123
Member Avatar
Resident?
VOTE: ADOLF HITLER

Let's nip this in the bud
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Menhad
Member Avatar
ET2(IDW)
lebowski2123
Oct 16 2009, 05:36 PM
VOTE: ADOLF HITLER

Let's nip this in the bud
Good idea....

I think Stalin would be a good choice as well
Edited by Menhad, Oct 16 2009, 10:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
I'm not liking Atticus, but bear in mind that TC changed from a no-reason vote, which is fine for a first vote, to another essentially no-reason vote, the same thing Atticus did. My money says they're opposing mafiates.

Then there's Araam and NH both voting no lynch, which is an automatic red flag.

Vote: Atticus

EDIT: Leb also has no-voted. So I've got paranoia enough for everyone.
Edited by Abnar, Oct 16 2009, 11:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I'm reconsidering my vote. The effective mafia tactic on first days is always to remain silent while a townie is lynched.

Unvote: Atticus
Vote: No One

In fact I would say Abnar is most suspicious right now because he has nonchalantly speculated on the number of mafia, and nonchalant speculation on the number of mafia has occurred in almost every single game thus far and has perfectly correlated with mafia status.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Oct 17 2009, 01:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
Tristan da Cunha
Oct 17 2009, 01:14 AM
I'm reconsidering my vote. The effective mafia tactic on first days is always to remain silent while a townie is lynched.

Unvote: Atticus
Vote: No One

In fact I would say Abnar is most suspicious right now because he has nonchalantly speculated on the number of mafia, and nonchalant speculation on the number of mafia has occurred in almost every single game thus far and has perfectly correlated with mafia status.
So mafiates stay silent, yet I'm a mafiate because I'm being vocal. Lolwut?

How well do contradictory logic, sweeping generalizations, and made-up statistics correlate with mafia status?

I'm speculating nochalantly because, in the event that I do get lynched or killed (I'm giving Nag a run for first night-kill, I'd bet.), my thoughts are on record for people to use.

EDIT: I'm not changing my vote because there's still a possibility you could be a misguided and overzealous townie.
Edited by Abnar, Oct 17 2009, 01:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

I'm figuring TC, NH and Abnar to be one side. The Germans.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Nag Ehgoeg
Oct 17 2009, 08:02 AM
I'm figuring TC, NH and Abnar to be one side. The Germans.
...and you are basing this on?????

I've had enough of your bullying accusations:

Unvote: No one
Vote: Nag Ehgoeg
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Tristan da Cunha
Oct 17 2009, 01:14 AM
In fact I would say Abnar is most suspicious right now because he has nonchalantly speculated on the number of mafia, and nonchalant speculation on the number of mafia has occurred in almost every single game thus far and has perfectly correlated with mafia status.
What are you referring to? The only comment by Abnar that I found that even relates to the number of mafia is:

Abnar
 
On an unrelated note, do we know how many total mafiates there are?
That might be nonchalant, but it is not speculation. It appears to be a question about the rules, since in some games that information is provided (like Allessandra's ComicCon game, where the number of mafiates was clearly on display). Generally, the number of mafiates is vitally important information (though I don't recall getting it this game :( ) because it allows members of the town to limit their voting when possible and stave off mafia bandwagons.

The reason why Abnar is suspicious is another comment he made:

Abnar
 
I heard that things go badly if TC lives.
This is a peculiar statement. I usually find the "Vote TC on the first round lulz" logic somewhat shady, since I assume that nobody would seriously approach this game with superstition as their primary tactic, but it is is particularly suspicious in this contect because of the qualification "I heard that." He did not say "Things go badly if TC lives," but instead said "I heard that things go badly if TC lives. Abnar has chosen to frame this as a matter of hearsay. While he has undid that vote in the time since, it is worth considering that he was essentially trying to distance himself from his own vote!

There are two logics that can underlie that vote: either he actually believed what he heard, or he didn't.

1) If he actually believed what he heard, then why attempt to distance himself from the belief?
2) If he did not actually believe what he heard, or was not sure, then why would he list it as the basis for his vote?

Either way, that is suspicous behavior. Also worth considering are his statements as follows:

Abnar
 
[...]Then there's Araam and NH both voting no lynch, which is an automatic red flag.

[...]
EDIT: Leb also has no-voted. So I've got paranoia enough for everyone.
Voting "no lynch" is not an obvious red flag. Paradise, who is the premier proponent of first round no lynch votes, purposefully and specifically included this option in the game rules, and over the course of our games, town players have often made the argument for no lynch. It is an argument based on probability, which requires us to speculate on the number of mafiates, but it is not an invalid argument, and while there are arguments for the other side as well, I have never seen a clear rebuttal of this argument - that generally a vote on the first day, if we don't acquire substantive information through the dialogue, is more likely to help the mafia than the town because the lynch will be largely random, and thus will likely kill a townie, since in most games, the town outnumbers the mafia (but I don't know if that is true in three-sided games like this one).

Based on the above analysis of his comments, I think that Abnar is currently one of the most suspicious players, and so,

Vote: Abnar
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Oct 17 2009, 11:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Our main priority right now is to unvote Atticus because it's nearly impossible to lynch a mafiate on the first day. The small lynching quorums on the first day means that mafia/s can always use diversionary tactics to ensure a townie is always lynched, while covering their own tracks. It's a distinct possibility that none of the people currently voting for Atticus are mafia (though you can't discount the possibility they are mafia either).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
No-lynching the first day is bad. It's the only means that we (the town) have of killing mafiates. Missing that opportunity is bad. By the "lynching on the first day is unlikely to kill a mafiate" logic, you shouldn't lynch until there are more mafia than town, i.e. until it's mathematically impossible for the town to win. People who support no-lynching make it easy for the mafia to have a "safe" tactic on day 1. "Hey, I'm not mafia, I don't wanna kill anyone!"

My vote for TC was, as most initial first-day votes are, intended to start discussion. Which it has. I apparently made the mistake of accompanying it with a joke, which RD has decided to analyze on a microscopic level.

My vote stands.
Edited by Abnar, Oct 17 2009, 07:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Abnar
Oct 17 2009, 07:03 PM
No-lynching the first day is bad. It's the only means that we (the town) have of killing mafiates. Missing that opportunity is bad.
So is killing townsfolk. While I happily vote for first day lynches when I think appropriate, saying that "no-lynching the first day is bad" does not explain how voting isn't bad. If we kill a townie, and the mafia kills a townie over night, then we have two dead townies instead of one. On a first day lynch, the townies are substantially more likely than not to vote for a townie, while mafiates can be sure of voting for a townie (or at least an enemy). The deck is stacked in the mafia's favor.

Quote:
 
By the "lynching on the first day is unlikely to kill a mafiate" logic, you shouldn't lynch until there are more mafia than town, i.e. until it's mathematically impossible for the town to win.
This is pretty much completely wrong. The no lynching on the first day argument is based on two pillars: 1) statistical likelihood of killing a townsman, and 2) lack of information available to non-mafiate voters. Over time, we gain new information, such as voting patterns, discussion, and roleclaims. Information can drastically increase the probability of lynching a mafiate, and if enough information is available on the first day, then a townie has a good reason to pursue a lynch. Of course, everyone has a different threshold for how much information that is, but in any case it certainly provides no reason to censure a first day lyncher. What it does do, is explain why this logic doesn't apply across the board - new information modifies probability in successive rounds.

Quote:
 
People who support no-lynching make it easy for the mafia to have a "safe" tactic on day 1. "Hey, I'm not mafia, I don't wanna kill anyone!"
While this makes sense on its face, it doesn't really mean much. I could just as easily say that voting TC lets mafia get away with "Hey, I'm not mafia, I'm just voting TC because the town loses when TC survives" and it would be just as absurd. Good mafia don't act in a specifically "mafia" way - they do exactly what townies do. If townies vote "no lynch," mafiates also might; if townies vote for a lynch, so will the mafia, and because they know who they want to kill, but the townies don't, they have an extreme advantage in directing votes during the first round.

Quote:
 
My vote for TC was, as most initial first-day votes are, intended to start discussion. Which it has. I apparently made the mistake of accompanying it with a joke, which RD has decided to analyze on a microscopic level.
Of course attempting to start discussions is good, but you didn't do that. Other players, like Huesca, Q, and Atticus were already discussing TC when you posted your vote. Your vote then triggered a couple people joining it, quickly ratcheting up the vote-count. How can you have intended to start discussion by voting for TC, when he was already the subject of the discussion?

Quote:
 
My vote stands.
As you will. Your vote will be analyzed on Day 2, in any case, as long as you are alive that long.
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Oct 17 2009, 07:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
Split quotes are annoying as hell.

By your logic, everyone should automatically vote "no lynch" on day 1 to avoid lynching a townie, because it's more likely. Night 1, townie dies. Now we start day 2 with no more information than we had on day 1. The people who vote day 1 are the only people who give the town new info.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Abnar
Oct 17 2009, 07:26 PM
Split quotes are annoying as hell.

By your logic, everyone should automatically vote "no lynch" on day 1 to avoid lynching a townie, because it's more likely. Night 1, townie dies. Now we start day 2 with no more information than we had on day 1. The people who vote day 1 are the only people who give the town new info.
Did you even read what I said? I specifically said at least twice that I do think that first day votes can be justified. My argument was never that we should do a "no lynch" (I'm voting for you, remember?), but rather that your argument that "no lynch" is a red flag is entirely invalid. Nothing you said in the post I am quoting actually reflects the thought I laid out which explained 1) why "no lynch" is a legitimate vote, and 2) why I nevertheless do feel that first day voting can be justified.

And split quotes might be annoying to you, but to me, nothing is more annoying than having to write a response when I can't easily match my responses to the statements to which I am responding.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Split quotes are the most fruitful exegitical tool known to man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Tristan da Cunha
Oct 17 2009, 07:41 PM
Split quotes are the most fruitful exegitical tool known to man.
True enough. By the way, I have a question for you. Earlier you said:

TC
 
In fact I would say Abnar is most suspicious right now because he has nonchalantly speculated on the number of mafia, and nonchalant speculation on the number of mafia has occurred in almost every single game thus far and has perfectly correlated with mafia status.
Is this really the case? I remember you saying this during the last game:

TC
ComicCon game
A vigilant eye should be kept on Nag. A favorite mafia tactic is to nonchalantly speculate on the number of mafia.
Of course, in that game, you were right and Nag was a supervillain, IIRC. And IIRC, he said that there were likely 3 (or 2 or 4) mafia. But what made that strange is that Allesandra precisely laid out the number of mafia in that game, so any uncertainly was a source of confusion. In a game where we don't actually know the number of mafiates, why would it be suspicious for townies to attempt to estimate the number of mafiates present, in order to avoid bandwagons, calculate the number of days they have left to win, etc.?
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Oct 17 2009, 07:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I'm not sure how to answer that question. :shy:
Admittedly my comment was not very productive in this round. My worldview is simplistic and nonchalant speculators are reflexively suspicious to me.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Oct 17 2009, 07:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
Voting no-lynch gives the mafia a safe tactic. If the mafia have a safe tactic, it's not unreasonable to think there's a possibility some will take it. I'm willing to bet that the proportion of mafiates to no-voters is greater than the proportion of mafiats to total players. I wouldn't vote for someone solely because he was no-voting, but it bears mentioning that one or more of the no-voters are likely mafiates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
One or more of no-voters could be mafiates but simultaneously, it's highly possible NONE of the lynch-voters are mafiates. The safest tactic for the mafia is to sit around without a word while townies lynch one of their own townies on the first day. That's completely easy and safe for the mafia to do.

I don't think Atticus has a night role because he hasn't put up a rigorous protest thus far. But mark my words, he will turn out to be a townie.

Oh hell, let's get this over with. Hopefully this will at least elicit more discussion.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Oct 17 2009, 08:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Abnar: That is a decent point, but it is a signficantly more moderate statement than saying a no-lynch vote is an automatic "red flag," which it isn't. We should certainly pay attention to "no lynch" voters, but at the same time, we cannot pay any less attention to lynch voters. "No lynch" is a safe strategy only when enough players vote it to make it so, but the opposite case is one where voting for a lynch is itself a safe strategy. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the mafiates to simply nonchalantly make a vote for someone who is completely aside from the discussion, and in that way, avoid drawing attention to themselves, or brush it off as normal behavior designed to draw out more discussion. Why is that any less suspicious than a "no lynch" vote.

So "no lynch" voters are suspicious because "no lynch" could be a safe strategy for mafiates.
And people who vote for minor candidates are also suspicious, because this an easy way for mafiates to avoid drawing attention.
But, people who vote for major candidates are themselves suspicous, because they look like they are part of mafia bandwagons.
And people who don't vote at all are fairly suspicous themselves, because this allows mafia to watch a townie get killed without getting their hands dirty.

So in the end, everyone is suspicious. I don't disagree that we should take care with "no lynch" voters, but there is nothing irrational about their behavior, and we should take care with all other players, unless we get a good reason to trust them.
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Oct 17 2009, 08:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
Tristan da Cunha
Oct 17 2009, 08:04 PM
One or more of no-voters could be mafiates but simultaneously, it's highly possible NONE of the lynch-voters are mafiates. The safest tactic for the mafia is to sit around without a word while townies lynch one of their own townies on the first day. That's completely easy and safe for the mafia to do.

I don't think Atticus has a night role because he hasn't put up a rigorous protest thus far. But mark my words, he will turn out to be a townie.

Oh hell, let's get this over with. Hopefully this will at least elicit more discussion.
Except that a no-lynch instantly ends the day, moving on to night and stopping discussion. Pretty much the entire point of the game for the mafiates. The more they sit around, the longer the town has to wonder, "Hey, where the heck are a quarter of our fellows?"

Yes, it's possible that none of the no-voters are mafiates. Possible, but improbable, I believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
Rhadamanthus
Oct 17 2009, 08:07 PM
Abnar: That is a decent point, but it is a signficantly more moderate statement than saying a no-lynch vote is an automatic "red flag," which it isn't. We should certainly pay attention to "no lynch" voters, but at the same time, we cannot pay any less attention to lynch voters. "No lynch" is a safe strategy only when enough players vote it to make it so, but the opposite case is one where voting for a lynch is itself a safe strategy. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the mafiates to simply nonchalantly make a vote for someone who is completely aside from the discussion, and in that way, avoid drawing attention to themselves, or brush it off as normal behavior designed to draw out more discussion. Why is that any less suspicious than a "no lynch" vote.

So "no lynch" voters are suspicious because "no lynch" could be a safe strategy for mafiates.
And people who vote for minor candidates are also suspicious, because this an easy way for mafiates to avoid drawing attention.
But, people who vote for major candidates are themselves suspicous, because they look like they are part of mafia bandwagons.
And people who don't vote at all are fairly suspicous themselves, because this allows mafia to watch a townie get killed without getting their hands dirty.

So in the end, everyone is suspicious. I don't disagree that we should take care with "no lynch" voters, but there is nothing irrational about their behavior, and we should take care with all other players, unless we get a good reason to trust them.
That's what a "red flag" is, RD. Something that should be paid attention to.

Anyone who provides shelter for mafiates is a possible mafiate themselves. I have the (admittedly misguided belief) that if I discourage the tactic long enough, no-voting will become obsolete in our community as it is in others I've played in. This leaves less refuge for the scum.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Abnar
 
Except that a no-lynch instantly ends the day, moving on to night and stopping discussion. Pretty much the entire point of the game for the mafiates. The more they sit around, the longer the town has to wonder, "Hey, where the heck are a quarter of our fellows?"

Yes, it's possible that none of the no-voters are mafiates. Possible, but improbable, I believe.


The mafia doesn't need to instantly end the day. They know that sooner or later a townie will be lynched by an all-townie plurality of just 3 or 4 people, like what happened in the Star Trek mafia game. They can make diversionary comments and there will be no clues for the next day.

I'm not saying you're a townie though Abnar, even if you're appearing to play right into the hands of the mafia.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Oct 17 2009, 08:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply