Mafia 39: Back to Gambits - Game over!

[Fuldu]

/confirm

[Fuldu]

Oh, how I laughed at the notion that we should lynch BJ because there was a good chance the bookie picked him. It's true that there's an increased probability of that, but there are a couple of other things to think about, as well. a) The bookie could already be dead, or could be BJ himself, in which case predicting his own lynch doesn't do him any good. b) Assuming the bookie doesn't have specific expectations about what's going to happen (because of a counterclaim the previous day or something), the odds are better to bet on a night kill rather than a lynch. He can contribute very little to getting a particular individual lynched and there are almost twice as many ways to be right betting on a night kill.

[Fuldu]

Some thoughts on everyone's concern regarding jeep's 'unusually strong reaction.'

First, jeep could be the bookie and could know that he chose HezLucky to be lynched today, and so is trying to sway the town in that direction. In support of this possibility is his arguing that "the bookie

could

contribute a LOT towards getting someone lynched." In opposition to it is the fact that he voted for somebody else before HezLucky and that I don't think it would be very good Day One play.

Second, jeep could be an investigator of some sort, trying to hide a scum result on HezLucky under the guise of an argument. In support of this possibility is the fact that I've done just that as a cop in other games - jumped on any pretext to get a vote out for the identified scum. In opposition is, again, the vote for Puzzle. Here the opposition isn't as strong - it isn't necessarily wise for a cop to leave a single vote on for an entire day, especially when roles aren't revealed after night deaths - but I feel like there could have been better ways to handle it.

Third, and the option I consider most probable, jeep could be reasonably good at this game and have noticed a correlation between scumminess and stretching to provide a justification even for the ostensibly random vote. This correlation used to be stronger, as an influx of players who seem to include a joke or silly comment in everything they say has increased the amount of noise, but it's enough of a correlation for a Day One bandwagon.

Fourth, for the record, it's not true that jeep is never scum. We were opposing scum in mith's NYPD mafia a while back. And although he did seem to do a good job of identifying opposing scum, he also later admitted that he had contributed to the eventual town win by not recognizing that the best scum approach was for the opposing sides to work together. So, although I trust him at present, I'd suggest being wary of his various comments about "the thing that is most in favor of the town" and "reduc[ing] the opposing scum to nothing." Of everything he's posted so far, those are the ones that seem most strained to me.

vote: HezLucky

[Fuldu]

I don't think anything I said or that jeep has said suggests a contradiction. My comment was that

in that particular game

the best scum strategy would have been to work together. Whether that would be the case in this game isn't clear to me one way or the other. I just wanted to point out that jeep doesn't

always

believe that it is in scum's interest to work against one another and to draw attention to the fact that he's being more forward about it than usual in this game.

And while you can easily say that he's not an investigator (and, really, what else would you say), I don't see how you could possibly know that he's not the bookie, unless you are yourself. The only other way you would know that is if you're a teamed group (scum or masons) and your vote, his vote and the subsequent bandwagons seem really poor play if that were the case.

As for argument 3, the one I believe to be the case, scummy behavior is not always a certain indicator of scum. Your vote and rationale, as jeep pointed out obliquely and I pointed out directly, is a possible scum tell. From my standpoint it isn't enough to lynch you on, but for Day One, it's enough to get a bandwagon rolling to see what happens. If it continues to be posts like your last, then maybe we'll move on to a lynch, but it need not become one.

On another matter, it wouldn't make any sense for Judas or Saulus to be angling for a lynch this early in the game. If somebody's angling to be lynched late in the game, as it becomes clearer how well town and scum are doing, then that's a reasonable conclusion to draw, but this early in the game BJ would just be limiting his options if that was what he was doing.

[Fuldu]

Hmm...I've always understood OMGUS as playful and absurd rather than spiteful and angry. That seems overly agressive, or perhaps mischaracterizing. Vote: dybeck.

I've seen both, repeatedly. As a general rule of thumb, if someone posts "OMGUS vote: HezLucky," they're probably doing it in a spirit of playfulness. But many times someone who is spiteful or angry will simply post "vote: HezLucky" without including the modifier and it's pretty obvious to everyone but the player casting the vote that this was an OMGUS vote.

[Fuldu]

Wouldn't a detective be confident of which vote is wrong/right? Or even a mason group?

No Blackberry, because generally a detective or a mason might know that

certain

bandwagons are good or bad, but mafia know whether the bandwagon is good or bad

for all bandwagons

. If it's on one of their fellow scum, it's bad, but if it's on anybody else, it's good.

But that points up the reason that that logic is faulty in this particular game. Scum have roles out there that are working with them, but that they don't know the identity of. As such, they aren't going to be as confident in their bandwagoning decisions as would be the case in a regular game.

[Fuldu]

I'll take it to EMACS and post it when it's done.

Look what you people did. I know there are those who complain about the occasional length and, urm, density of some of my posts, but I'd never resort to EMACS.

For the record, I continue to find HezLucky's responses and increased ferocity toward jeep to be far more striking than anything jeep has said.

And specifically with regards to HezLucky's offhand suggestion that we can always resurrect jeep if he turns out to be pro-town, that seems awfully cavalier. It presumes that the bookie gets one right (tomorrow is probably our best bet for "planning" a lynch, but I'm still unconvinced that it's a good idea at all) and that he's not already dead.

[Fuldu]

Well if dybeck isn't inclined to claim, I think we should just finish the lynch off. The defense he's raising hasn't been particularly strong, although neither was STD's and everyone backed away from that pretty readily.

I think jeep's certainty that the opposing family will take care of the other accusation is a bit surprising. jeep may believe that STD is scum, but scum aren't necessarily going to agree with him. And even if they do, it isn't clear why they'd target him when (if he survives the night) he's going to be strongly targeted for lynch tomorrow. I'd be more inclined to rely on the vigilante to decide whether to follow jeep's lead than to expect scum to do the same.

unvote: HezLucky; vote: dybeck

[Fuldu]

Why so sure they're in different families, jeep? Know something we don't?

STD and dybeck don't have to be in opposing families for his argument to work (although I've suggested other reasons why I don't think it does). He's just talking about whichever scum family STD isn't in.

[Fuldu]

I'm sorry, jeep, but if you're going to accuse me of being scum over it, I'm going to have to press the argument. Assume STD is Mafia, without loss of generality. Why would the Werewolves kill him tonight when he's currently the prime candidate for lynch tomorrow? If he isn't available as a lynch target tomorrow, then there's an increased likelihood that one of the Werewolves will end up getting lynched. Why wouldn't it be preferable for them to make a night-kill of their choosing and rally for an STD lynch tomorrow rather than to night-kill STD and risk ending up with a Werewolf lynch tomorrow? I would assume, based on the post times and the fact that you completely ignored it, vikingfan's post went up while you were typing yours, but he's making essentially the same point as I am.

And your sudden conclusion that I'm therefore in the same scum family as STD is surprising. The only thing a member of STD's group has to gain by pointing out that it doesn't make sense for opposing scum to kill him and recommending a vig kill instead is to hope that the vig is one of the two deceased, which isn't especially good odds. As town, I genuinely believe that it doesn't make sense for opposing scum to kill STD and don't expect them, therefore, to do so. I think there's a good chance you're right about STD and dybeck, so I think it would be to town's benefit to have the vig go after whichever of them (presumably STD) we don't lynch.

[Fuldu]

unvote: dybeck

. Before I move my vote somewhere else, can anyone explain to me why the STD bandwagon died simply because he posted with a great deal of indignation? I feel like I'm missing something.

[Fuldu]

I'm not at all convinced of dybeck's innocence, but odds are, if he's scum, either mafia or werewolves will go after him tonight, so he'll probably be dead in the morning. Given that, if he's revealed as scum tonight, then we'll know the real Sorcerer is alive and well. If not, we know he was probably telling the truth. So unvote dybeck.

Why will we know that the real Sorcerer is alive and well? If dybeck is revealed as scum, then we'll know he wasn't the Sorcerer, but how does that preclude the possibility that one of the already dead players was the Sorcerer?

And if no one wants to respond to me regarding why the STD bandwagon disappeared, I'm happy to move my vote there.

vote: Save The Dragons

[Fuldu]

Well, we'll go to no lynch if he's the Judas or Saulus, so I'm less worried about that. Besides,:

The true identities of persons assassinated at night are not revealed, although the identities of the victims of the day lynchings are.

...so we'll be informed who STD is. We just don't get information on night deaths. Also, I think you meant Angel instead of Sorceror. dybeck claimed the latter, STD claimed the former.

I think having the Bookie put their bet on a BJ lynching and then following through with it if STD turns out to be the Angel makes sense. But what should he do if STD isn't the Angel? A dybeck night-kill?

[Fuldu]

Oh, and I'm not the angel, obviously, if I were it would be stoopid to counter claim, since an outed angel is toast eventually with 2 killing groups.

I don't dispute that an outed Angel is bad, but keep in mind that only the Mafia would have any incentive to target the Angel over any other pro-town player. As far as the Werewolves are concerned, the Angel is just another townie. The same (or vice-versa) is true of many of the roles in this game.

But if you're not counterclaiming Angel, then what was with the big old disputation? Not that many other explanations exist given this role set. You could be the Seer and have investigated STD and know that he's a Werewolf, but then you'd have been voting him harder, sooner, instead of voting for (oy) six different people over the course of the day, half of them three or more times. You could be the Governor, have investigated STD and know that he's a protective role, but then you wouldn't be voting him (and it isn't clear why he'd be lying). You could be in a group (scum or mason) with him, but you wouldn't be voting him and he wouldn't be lying (if mason) or wouldn't be disputing the claim so fervently but maybe still voting him (if scum). None of those really make any sense and I can't come up with any other explanations beyond translating your outburst as "I don't believe you." If that's what you meant by it, you should say so, because otherwise I'm going to have a hard time trusting you tomorrow whether STD turns out to be scum or not.

[Fuldu]

STD, please reveal your investigation.

He already said that roland came up not-Mafia.

[Fuldu]

If discussion lags, I will impose a deadline (in which case half a majority results into a successful lynch, but only with more than 6 players alive).

[Fuldu]

Looks like HezLucky was a wrong guess on a vig kill. I'd rather we didn't have a vig who was too proactive.

I think we should lynch dybeck today, with the idea that the governor should have checked the sorceror claim last night, and would pardon him today if he was telling the truth. Vote dybeck.

I have concerns about the specifics of the governor plan. In particular, it assumes that the governor is alive, which with 5 dead not-primary-scum (they could be Judas, Saulus, or Vampire waiting on resurrection) roles is not guaranteed. Also, if dybeck is the Judas or Saulus, I'm not sure we would be able to distinguish the no lynch resulting from that from a governor pardon. And finally, if dybeck

is

the Sorcerer, we're resigning ourselves to a no lynch today. But given that the alternative is having the governor come out, I'm not sure I feel any better about that.

I don't see any problems with Blackberry letting us know if a mason has died or with letting us know what they talked about at night.

[Fuldu]

I believe, though I'm not certain, that that's eight of ten votes on dybeck. I'm not going to put mine on until we've at least addressed why it is that I'm suddenly being suggested as a target for a vig kill. I looked back over my posts and can't find anything that looks like it would have been interpreted as "going head to head." Was he more explicit about what he meant by that, Blackberry, because I'd just as soon not go to night and be vig-killed without getting at least some chance to convince you I'm not scum.

[Fuldu]

Fuldu, you being a mafia member is consistant with everything else so far. Jeep was killed by a mafia, it was obvious in my last post he thought you were going to kill him.

But I am not and I did not. I know jeep thought that I was Mafia, he'd said as much on Day One. But if the vig ends up killing me based on what, in this particular case, is faulty logic and without letting me respond to the accusations simply because jeep's dead and all you can do is repeat them without explaining them, I'm going to be very upset and the town's not going to be happy about it.

jeep's argument that I'm Mafia was basically that I was tied to STD because I was suggesting that I didn't believe the opposing scum would target him if we lynched dybeck.

To which I've already responded:

I'm sorry, jeep, but if you're going to accuse me of being scum over it, I'm going to have to press the argument. Assume STD is Mafia, without loss of generality. Why would the Werewolves kill him tonight when he's currently the prime candidate for lynch tomorrow? If he isn't available as a lynch target tomorrow, then there's an increased likelihood that one of the Werewolves will end up getting lynched. Why wouldn't it be preferable for them to make a night-kill of their choosing and rally for an STD lynch tomorrow rather than to night-kill STD and risk ending up with a Werewolf lynch tomorrow? I would assume, based on the post times and the fact that you completely ignored it, vikingfan's post went up while you were typing yours, but he's making essentially the same point as I am.

And your sudden conclusion that I'm therefore in the same scum family as STD is surprising. The only thing a member of STD's group has to gain by pointing out that it doesn't make sense for opposing scum to kill him and recommending a vig kill instead is to hope that the vig is one of the two deceased, which isn't especially good odds. As town, I genuinely believe that it doesn't make sense for opposing scum to kill STD and don't expect them, therefore, to do so. I think there's a good chance you're right about STD and dybeck, so I think it would be to town's benefit to have the vig go after whichever of them (presumably STD) we don't lynch.

I would point out that my argument is supported by the fact that neither scum team targeted dybeck last night. We think he's likely to be a Werewolf, but the Mafia killed jeep. Clearly jeep's response would be that that's because

I'm

opposing scum, but that's simply not true. I couldn't have killed dybeck last night, even if I'd wanted to.

I recommended that the vig kill STD last night (when we looked likely to lynch dybeck) and then voted for STD when the bandwagon swung that way. These are not anti-town acts. If I get night-killed because of jeep's faulty logic, everyone's going to feel very stupid.

[Fuldu]

Wait, so jeep is saying I'm scum because I'm tied to STD (dead Mafia) and Speedy is saying I'm scum because I'm tied to dybeck (presumed Werewolf). Any other suggestions?

For the record, I was not defending dybeck, I was expressing concerns about the proposed plan for lynching dybeck, due to it relying heavily on a number of factors that were not well thought through. In particular, the thought process seemed to be "if we lynch dybeck and he ends up not being lynched, it means that the Governor pardoned him, so he must be who he says he is." I felt, and still feel, it was important to point out that it could just as easily mean that he is a Judas or Saulus.

But that's an argument that is neither here nor there. What I want to discuss now is the proposed plan for vig-killing me, and I think it's perfectly reasonable of me to withhold my vote until I've had a chance to do so. Blackberry hasn't explained jeep's argument to any new degree and I feel I've responded to the arguments he made himself. They're wrong and the vig would be making a mistake to kill me over them.