Open 57 - Quack Mafia (Game Over) before 545

[Tarhalindur]

Vote: Vollkan

- Die, Replicator scum! (please ignore the snake in my head...)

Second thought - I was in the first Quack Mafia, and my thought then is still my thought now - the setup *should* be breakable. But how? I'm trying to think about that.

[Tarhalindur]

Vote: Tarhalindur

I think we should no lynch today and circle "protect" to figure out who the quack doctors are. The mafia will have a few obstacles:

1) They can't kill anyone being protected by a real doctor.
2) If we only have 3 kills, all three of those people are confirmed protown, and it's possible that a mafia will be killed in the process
3) As a result of 2, the mafia will have to kill someone they are protecting to make it seem like there are 4 quack doctors. Then, we have the mafia split into two categories: 4 quack doctors (1 of which is mafia) and 8 sane doctors (2 of which are mafia). That's 1/4 and 2/8(1/4) chances of finding them, which of course is still the same as we already have, with a few exceptions. We can now guarantee the separations and hold the mafia to specific claims after day 1. Plus, with 3 of the 4 kills being randomly assigned, we've got a 3/11+3/10+3/9 chance of hitting at least 1 mafia during night 1, which is a 90% chance of eliminating scum on the first night. That's pretty good odds.

Unvote, Vote: No Lynch

This sounds right to me, but the correct strategy post-N1 needs to be altered in order to account for the fact that Quacks can't hit mafia.

If we circle-protect, then (depending on how many of the Quacks are preceded by Mafia in the player list) we will have somewhere between 1 and 4 NKs.

If there is 1 NK, then the best assumption is that all of the quacks hit Mafia and we lynch the player behind the lone kill, then reverse-circle protect the next night. 1 Quack will be revealed by the D2 lynch and the other two should be revealed by the next night's kills (also outing the two scum).

If there are 2 NKs, we lynch one of the two quack candidates (best assumption is that one is scum), and reverse circle-protect the next night (minus the confirmed quack, if applicable). I think that the numbers are enough for a good endgame for town, but I haven't run them fully.

If there are 3 NK's, we lynch one of the quack candidates (or a confirmed scum) and I'm not totally sure what to do the next night (I *think* that we reverse circle protect N2, but I am not sure).

If there are 4 NK's, then we have one group with 3 town and 1 scum and one group with 2 town and 2 scum, leaving us in a lylo

I think that the easiest way to sort out the circle protect is by player listing: each player should protect the player directly above themself on the player list.

Unvote, Vote: No Lynch

[Tarhalindur]

I'm quack (...again...), killed Vollkan.

[Tarhalindur]

/prodded

More later, I'm somewhat short on time.

[Tarhalindur]

So, for the record, what's the town's opinion on we quacks trying to protect people they think are scum in the hopes of finding scum?

Unvote, Vote: Phate

[Tarhalindur]

Unvote

Quack, in this situation, reads; "You are a Cop. Each night, you may investigate one person. If they are town, they die." A power with a drawback, but still a power. I don't see how asking whether it's ever worth it to use is scummy.

It's not scummy to ask (though protecting as Quack *is* stupid - I protected as known Quack in the original Quack Mafia in a "protect correctly or lose" situation, and would have lost the game for the town singlehandedly if not for the successful Mafia kill the same night).

Then again, that's not why I voted for you (and if I had been voting you for the question, I would have tossed in commentary). Rather, I voted you for two unstated reasons:

1) You are, from my perspective, the most likely of the claimed Quacks to be Mafia (at this point, I have a town read on Oman, and I know that I am town, so...).
2) I was checking to see if anyone stepped out of their way to either further my seemingly poorly-reasoned attack (scum attacking an apparently vulnerable townie) or defend you (scumbuddy defense).

Shaft.ed's reaction to my vote is the most notable - he talks about theory instead of game events, then attacks kuribo and myself almost as an afterthoughts. That looks like a scum reaction to me - I need to take a second look at shaft.ed's other posts again and confirm my new scum read on him.

Vote: Shaft.ed, FoS: Phate

[Tarhalindur]

2) I was checking to see if anyone stepped out of their way to either further my seemingly poorly-reasoned attack (scum attacking an apparently vulnerable townie) or defend you (scumbuddy defense).

So if someone furthered your attack, they're scum, and if someone defended me, they're scum? It looks like the only way here to not be branded scum is to ignore the issue altogether - of course, then one would be called out for lurking.

Craplogic, for two reasons. First, your assessment that the ignoring option will inevitably lead to accusations of lurking is incorrect - a player can ignore my attack and continue to post his own analysis of the game, Second, there is a fourth possible reaction, and one that is clearly pro-town to boot:

ask for the reasoning (if my vote was unnexplained) or for clarification about my reasoning (if my vote was poorly reasoned)

.

As for why I decided to ignore kuribo's attack: In my experience, defense via voting for the attacker is much scummier than attacking the player who I am attacking. This is especially true when there are both players defending and players attacking, and ESPECIALLY true when the player I was attacking and the player that attacked me for attacking seem to suddenly get on the same wavelength IMMEDIATELY after my reaction-test.

I already found Phate to be the most likely scum candidate among the claimed quacks (since I have a town read on Oman and I know that I am town); now I see Phate and shaft.ed start ganging up on me after my vote. To me, that reeks of scumbuddy interactions.

Confirm Vote: shaft.ed
HoS: Phate

Note that at this point I am willing to switch between these two (as they are my top two scum candidates), but at this point I think that we should lynch either Phate or shaft.ed today.

[Tarhalindur]

Wow, Tar lots of problems with your last post.

First you start by attacking the weak point of Phate's argument that someone not responding to you could be called out for lurking. That was obviously incorrect. However, you barely even address that fact that you could call someone scum for agreeing with you or for disagreeing with you. You just say "in your experience" that is the way it is. Conveniently if you get both the one that's the attacker is more likely scum, but what happens if you only get people agreeing with you, you said they are scummy so how does that work?

I thought that this would be self-evident, but since that does not seem to be the case: I was looking for either of two possible tells: scum stepping up to defend their scumbuddy or a weak townie (in the latter case, it's often done to get a pet townie), and scum trying to push a quickwagon (both well-known tells). On the whole, I consider the aggressive defense to be the more significant of the two (barring a player with a well-known history of aggressive bussing).

This leads me to the next point. You have one "tell" which I would argue is incredibly weak, and you are expanding this to the point were it must always catch scum. I've never seen a scum trap that works so well, yet you're ready to lynch based on a single "tell."

we should lynch either Phate or shaft.ed today

I would like to point out to you that the last few pages consists of very little dialog from about half of the players in the game. We also have a replacement that hasn't even posted the entire day, yet you're already willing to move to a lynch.

You are arguing scumminess when what you are actually looking at is playstyle. My knee-jerk aggression in part due to me trying to bait out scum interactions and also due to me trying to get the game hunting and, you know,

trying to get people to start hunting for scum

.

That is quite hasty and meshes well with your glaring glossing over of MoS's breaking strategy yesterday that basically put the seal of approval on the whole thing while completely debunking it.

I supported the circle protect because I was in the original Quack Mafia and saw just how damaging it was for docs to randomly protect and the possibility that the setup was breakable (hell, the only reason I joined the game was to test and see if the circle-protect strategy would work after thinking of it and, IIRC, mentioning it in the original game). In retrospect, I was wrong, but I was blind to its flaws at the time.

You also are basing your entire tell on the fact that I was attacking you. Yet when you first voted for me you said:

attacks kuribo and myself

almost as an afterthoughts

.

So how does a weak attack fit into your experience. I would hardly call my earlier post an attack.

I didn't think Phate's post was considerably scummy and I think the votes could be seen as opprotunistic.

That's merely an observation. Yet you're basing your entire scum read of two players off of it.

You haven't given any other substantiating evidence that I am scum. You also keep stating:

I already found Phate to be the most likely scum candidate among the claimed quacks (since I have a town read on Oman and I know that I am town);

So the only reason you think Phate is scum is because Oman is giving you a town read? You haven't made a single point to substantiate your case on Phate either.

In my experience, I've found that when someone is having trouble fitting scum into their scenario it's because they are in fact themselves scum.

unvote vote Tarlahindur

You are either misreading or misrepresenting my post. Just because Phate is the *most likely* of the claimed Quacks to be scum does not necessarily mean that he *is* scum - by itself, it is nothing more than a minor scumtell. Just because you defended Phate does not necessarily mean that you are scum - by itself, it's just another scumtell. It's the combination of lots of little tells (and one really big one) that make me think you are probably scum.

That said, there is one HUGE scumtell that I am seeing in your posts, one that I have not been emphasizing enough, and it's the argument that you are conveniently ignoring. When I voted you (a vote on slightly inflated reasons, I admit, but one that I am pleased with regardless), you immediately responded with OMGUS (understandable but still scummy)... and then Phate, who you had defended earlier,

immediately started defending you by attacking me

, and you two have been on pretty much identical wavelengths ever since. I find it difficult to believe that two players would start building on each other's arguments unless one and probably both of them are scum.

It's not just that you have both defended each other, it's not that both of you are leading an OMGUS attack on me -

your primary scumtell in my eyes is that you seem to be on the same wavelength as Phate to the extent that you are filling in his argument for him, and vice versa.

[Tarhalindur]

I'll answer shaft.ed's posts tomorrow if at all possible. I also need to take a look at MoS, who I haven't paid attention to due to tunnel vision (and who I may be able to meta, given that I'm fairly used to his play as town by now).

Unvote

for now to avoid further tunnel vision.

[Tarhalindur]

Vote: MoS

.

More later, short on time (note that the tells I'm seeing from MoS are universal but even more noteworthy than usual coming from him).

[Tarhalindur]

EBWOP: Reminding myself that I still need to reply to shaft.ed, too.

[Tarhalindur]

In short, the reason why I am now voting MoS is, when I looked over MoS'es posts, I couldn't find any MoS scumhunting in this game - instead, MoS is focusing primarily on game theory. This would ping my scumdar even under ordinary circumstances (it's the Information Instead of Analysis tell), but it's more damning than usual coming from MoS since I've used to MoS being an aggressive scumhunter.

The clearest example of this was hard to spot when I was just reading through the thread, but became blatantly obvious when I looked at MoS'es posts:

if you ignore MoS'es random vote on Day 1 (which he immediately unvoted in favor of No Lynch), then MoS has not voted for anyone during the course of the game

. Coming from MoS, that's very, very noteworthy - if not lynchworthy, then at least a sign that MoS is in serious need of some pressure.

[Tarhalindur]

Tarhalindur, there is evidence that I was going to attempt to break the game before I even knew my role, so I find it hard to believe that you think this is some sinister plan on my part. I came into the game with a mission of devising a strategy that could win the game for the town, but the eagerness of the town to follow my lead made this a little harder now. Even so, we all knew coming into the game that I'd try to come up with a winning strategy, so it's dumb to say that I'm scum for doing it.

As for my suspicions, they're developing slowly. I want to watch a few more reactions to see how things end up, because I really don't have much right now. I have been a little *too* wrapped up in theories to pay attention to lynching people so far, but I want to change that.

Nice strawman. MoS, I never said that I considered your attempts to find a breaking strategy scummy in and of themselves. What I do find suspicious is that the only things you talked about prior to coming under fire were breaking strategies.

You've had enough interest to post ideas on how to break the game, but not enough interest to actually scumhunt - in fact, you don't seem to have mentioned anyone individually except in the contest of defending your actions. I'm used to you being more aggressive than this, and I'm used to you actually taking positions on players. Your failure to do so is pinging my scumdar.

[Tarhalindur]

I would vote MoS if it wasn't at -1 already. I had found his plans to just be honest mistakes, however, compiled with the lack of scumhunting he seems the best candidate. I will wait a bit before I put the hammer. I also suggest you claim. Wait, that wouldn't do any good would it? lol.

Noting this post for later (need to decide whether to interpret it as scum pushing a wagon without actually joining it or newb town supporting a wagon).

[Tarhalindur]

Or both.

Actually, no. If no quicklynch materializes, then we can be absolutely sure that exactly one of you and Oman is town, since you are both claimed Quacks and the Mafia only has one NK.

I will review Oman's posts, but I am leaning towards you being the scum in the Quacks for reasons explained yesterday (and if you're scum, then shaft.ed probably is scum as well).

[Tarhalindur]

Instead of getting hasty about lynching someone, I want a mass target claim for N2. It might be revealing.

Let's do it in random order, ok?

Original Roll String: 1d7

1 7-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d6

1 6-Sided Dice: (4) = 4

Original Roll String: 1d5

1 5-Sided Dice: (4) = 4

Original Roll String: 1d4

1 4-Sided Dice: (4) = 4

Original Roll String: 1d3

1 3-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

Original Roll String: 1d2

1 2-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

[Tarhalindur]

OK, if we go through with the target claim, the order (by player list) is:

TylerJ, kuribo, Oman, Phate, shaft.ed, Tarhalindur, farside22

For easy reference, the current playerlist is: Oman, shaft.ed, TylerJ, Phate, Tarhalindur, kuribo, farside22

[Tarhalindur]

Since people seem to be missing the point, let's take a look at my post with the dice rolls on the last page.

Instead of getting hasty about lynching someone, I want a mass target claim for N2. It might be revealing.

Let's do it in random order, ok?

Original Roll String: 1d7 (STATIC)

1 7-Sided Dice: (4) = 4

Original Roll String: 1d6 (STATIC)

1 6-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

Original Roll String: 1d5 (STATIC)

1 5-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d4 (STATIC)

1 4-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

Original Roll String: 1d3 (STATIC)

1 3-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d2 (STATIC)

1 2-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

How to get the claim order: Take the playerlist, select someone from the list based on the number given by the dice, select a second player from the remaining players using the second number, rinse, repeat.

No preferences involved, just random selection. It's possible that I screwed up the numbers when running the numbers, but the theory is simple.

[Tarhalindur]

/prodded

The reason why only one of the quacks can be scum is that the mafia have only one kill, so two of the claimed Quacks have to be telling the truth (since otherwise there wouldn't have been 3 kills N1). This also all-but-clears me.

I'm pretty sure at the moment that Phate and shaft.ed are two of the scum (I will check Oman's play in Newb 517 before I vote, however). I have a town read on Kuribo atm, TylerJ looks suspicious, farside moderately suspicious.

More later, see V/LA for details.

[Tarhalindur]

Deadline?

Screw it, I'm voting for the player I think is scum. May the gods help me if I'm wrong.

Vote: shaft.ed

[Tarhalindur]

We are at lylo with votes active. CASES ARE IRRELEVANT NOW.

Let's look at this logically.

We are in LyLo. At most one of the three claimed quacks can be scum. Two of the quacks have been voting for each other for some time, and neither has been hammered, erg0 we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that one of those two quacks is scum and that the third quack (myself) is confirmed town. The nigh-confirmed town player is voting for a fourth, non-quack player, who has not been quickhammered with one player still failing to check in.

Since shaft.ed has NOT been hammered and is being voted by a player who is all-but-confirmed town, he is almost CERTAINLY scum and needs to be lynched today. This is reinforced by the fact that he has cast the only second vote of the day (which would allow scum to quicklynch is a townie is so stupid as to vote Oman now). Due to past interactions and the fact that I trust Oman a hell of a lot more than I trust Phate, I strongly believe that Phate is shaft.ed's scumbuddy.

I'm not sure which of {TylerJ, farside} is the third scum, but that's something to deal with when there is 1 scum remaining. I'm pretty sure kuribo is town at this point, mainly due to his response to Phate's "use quacks as cops" suggestion during D2 (note that the quacks as cops idea was discredited by my play during the first Quack Mafia).

LOCK ON: shaft.ed

(for those unfamiliar with the terminology, LOCK ON is an extreme form of Confirm Vote and means that I will not be unvoting unless absolutely necessary)

[Tarhalindur]

<snip>

I am confused with the 'absolutely sure shaft.ed is scum' logic. please explain again.

Yes I felt Tar's logic was a bit tortured. I hope explaining it again will allow him to think about it harder.

<snip>

The logic here is amazingly simple. If you were, in fact, town, then you would probably be dead now (as in greater than 75% chance that the game would be over), or at least have a few more votes on you now (to try to prepare for the quicklynch attempt). After all, you have a town vote on you, and scum have absolutely no reason not to at least try to set up the quicklynch (if they can pull if off they win the game). Despite this, you do not have any votes on you except mine. Therefore, you are scum beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Tarhalindur]

No, we were handicapped from the get=go because the setup is broken in the Mafia's favor.

Why? As far as I can tell, having played in both Quack Mafia games, optimal player for the town is to play the setup as mountainous (or MAYBE to have everybody protect the same person, but that's not much better IMO), and 9-3 mountainous is strongly scum-leaning.

The setup needs -1 Quack no matter what, and probably either only 2 scum or 2 2-man scumgroups.