Mini 642: Bodyguard 7: (Game Over)

[jonathantan86]

Hi everyone.

Random

vote: TheSweatpantsNinja

CallMeLiam:

[jonathantan86]

Mod: If the Bodyguard successfully "takes the hit" for someone else, will the mafia's original target be mentioned?

(I.e. will there be a message to the effect of "The mafia targetted X but he/she was guarded by Y who took the hit. Y was killed by the mafia."?)

No. Also, you won't be able to distinguish a Bodyguard who was killed by the mafia from a Bodyguard who took the hit from someone else.

[jonathantan86]

jonathantan86 = seems to have completely ignored my post

Sorry...I was waiting for clarification from the mod before making my decision. So, yes, I think you should reveal it but not yet. At least wait for everyone to chime in with their thoughts.

hohum has not posted yet in this thread. (It's not that long since the start of the game though.)

[jonathantan86]

Jonathan: instead of just saying you were waiting for an answer to your question before you decided, you chose to make no mention of it. Was there a reason for this?

Yes, I did not want to give out too information just in case you were scum.

I wasn't sure of the functionality of the bodyguard, not having played a game with one before. And the wiki entry is also quite vague. If the mafia's original target was going to be mentioned if the bodyguard takes the hit, your strategy for the bodyguard not to protect anyone would be wrong and would benefit the scum. You would be passing off a scum-favouring strategy as pro-town, and that's why I thought you might be scum.

However the original target is not mentioned, and your strategy is correct.

[jonathantan86]

What was it that convinced you BaB wasn't scum, or convinced you enough to drop your guard?

My post was quite soon after BaB (without many intervening posts), and I did not want to fall into some trap (quite possibly a scum would put forth something and then attack me for something I said in response).

I don't mind posting more now, not because I'm fully convinced that BaB is town but because discussion has opened up as a result of BaB's post and more discussion is good for the town. So I'm talking, trying to contribute. Slaine Hayes, TDC and hohum, what do you think?

[jonathantan86]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but this makes no sense at all. If anyone is scum besides you, then anything you write in this thread the scum will see. So why all the sudden is it okay to give away information? Even if you think I'm not scum, somebody else has to be.

Well, I needed to straddle two priorities:
1) Not give the scum too much information
2) Spur conversation (which generally benefits the town)

I was worried that if I said too much at an early stage, scum could turn the conversation to their own advantage. For example, by questioning me and me alone (since no one else volunteered anything yet, they could probably do this and still remain undetected). And I would be giving out information without achieving priority 2.

However more people have responded, and so if I say more hopefully I will realise priority 2. There is still the risk of giving out information, but I feel that conversation is more necessary.

I was asking TDC's opinion on how the conversation has turned, or his/her opinions on the behaviour of the people here.

[jonathantan86]

A spot of really quick thinking tells me that if the cop investigates the bodyguard night one, then the win is no longer guaranteed. I know it's unlikely but just wanted to throw it out there.

If the percentages don't take something into account, then I assumed that taking them into account might change the result. It was also nothing more than a quick think and having made it clear that I wanted to see your working I think it's clear that I don't 100% understand or agree with it.

CML, what was your working? The percentages won't change because the probability of winning is 100% already and both scum-hunting and cop investigations can only increase that number. (All this is assuming both power roles survive, of course.)

Fixed your tags. In the future put quotation marks around the person's name when using quote tags in order to make the quote tags work.

[jonathantan86]

Sorry. Will reread and post.

[jonathantan86]

Using BaB's numbers:

Code: Select all

Lynch  Townie(3/5)   Scum(2/5)
NK     T(2/4) P(2/4) T(3/5) P(2/5)  (T=townie, P=power role)
       (6/20) (6/20) (6/25) (4/25)
       0.30   0.30   0.24   0.16

       86.7%  50%    100%   70%

Notice that if we lynch scum and a power role gets killed by the mafia, the town has a 70% chance of winning. And if we lynch town and a townie gets killed, we have a 86.7% chance of winning.

This might show that scum is willing to spur conversation in order to "out" a power role, and is willing to take the risk of similarly "outing" one of its members because the numbers favour this strategy. So the numbers say that it's quite possible that BaB is scum using this strategy, and it's quite obvious that he's aware of all these. If BaB is scum, he would probably have thought of all this beforehand and instructed his scum partner to lie low to avoid detection. So far the person who has lain low the most is Slaine Hayes, and BaB might have tried to pseudo-bus Slaine Hayes in his vote.

And since this is already page 4, it's time to take off my random vote.

Unvote

[jonathantan86]

A) I think that a power role is idiotic enough to mention something that would reveal themselves to be a power role. Are you serious? Is anyone here so dimwitted they're going show whether their a power role or not based on their responses to this? There's absolutely nothing they'd do different if they're a powerrole or not. Regardless whether I was power role or vanilla, I'd still post the numbers.

Well yes. A powerrole might post and question less to avoid drawing too much attention to him/herself, instead preferring to let a vanilla townie do the questioning (because vanilla townies are more "expendable").

B) that I am idiotic enough to believe that my master scum-plan will work. I'm not an idiot.

Um...*your* master scum-plan? Well the numbers are on the scum's side if they follow this plan (although a bit slightly, I concede).

I have to say Jonathan, the bussing Slaine Hayes thing looks very weak to me. I'm very wary of people using low activity as a reason for suspicion.
Of course it's entirely possible that BaB is scum and throwing all this up to make himself look very townie, but that's not the vibe I'm getting.

I was just bringing up the possibility that scum would want to spur conversation instead of lurk, that's all, and tried to logically conclude what would happen. So the bussing Slaine Hayes thing was not a concrete reason---just that I thought that the other scum would lurk (assuming all my earlier assumptions are correct, which might or might not be true) and Slaine Hayes seems to fit the bill (the "bussing" seems to support that, although I wouldn't hinge my vote based on that alone). Having said that, it seems that Slaine Hayes is inactive for other reasons than being a lurking scum, so that's not an issue anymore.

BaB, who are your top candidates for the two scum, if you have any?

[jonathantan86]

So you're saying that in this setup, discussing the setup is anti-town?
To be honest, while I see where you're getting with scum trying to find the power roles (which is something they'd want to do in every setup, not just this one..) you seem to ignore the "danger" for them to drop scum tells while doing so.

No, discussing the setup is not anti-town per se. But picking fights with others might be.

I'm not ignoring the "danger" that they will drop a scum tell. I just think that the numbers show that it's worth the while taking the scumtell-risk to investigate power roles.

Why isn't this this case for every single game? If what you're saying it true, it would be universally true (power roles posting less), especially when people speculate about the setup (which happens in most closed games). So, if you're right, scum should in all games know who to NK just based on who posts the least?
That's what you just said.

Of course it's not true for every game. I just think this is correct strategy, and thus is probably how most townies and powerroles will play.

I was making fun of you. You're making all these wild accusations about me making a huge plan to try to catch power roles. You're not voting either. I think you're making this points against me to see if any fish (townies) bite.

Okay, to ask your question back to you...how would a townie bite and how would the scum benefit from that? And secondly, how is my supposed "wild accusation" of you different from you accusing others?

Do you mean a scum-pair (two people connected together)?
Or do you want my top two suspects?

Whichever you are "more sure of" or prefer to say.

By the way, how I came about to mention the possibility that BaB is scum is:

A. The best scum strategy (I think) would be to try to "out" the power roles, willing to take the scumtell-risk.
B. BaB seems to have been doing that the most. (And also, he knows about the numbers, and the numbers seem to tell that the best scum strategy is as above.)

I don't have anything better to go on. Do you all think A and B above are plausible?

[jonathantan86]

Um. . . no. Pro-town powerroles ought to attempt to hunt scum like everyone else. Having noncontributing powerroles is an excellent way to get powerroles outed.

Yes, they should, but I still think there's a difference. There are tactics like "hunting for reactions" that townies rather than power roles should use. Anyway my point was it's possible to differentiate townies and powerroles if the conversation is "right" (for the scum).

I don't really see how discussing the setup is going to make outing power roles "easier" than any other form of discussion (or bandwagoning for that matter).

What setup discussion could do is distracting from scum hunting.

I was referring to BaB's attacking anyone that seems to disagree with him.

NOTE: I just reread post 94 and came to see your attack on me is alot weaker than what I previously thought it was. However; your recent actions (insisting that what you found is evidence for me to be scum) have led me to keep my vote on you.

Yes I was wondering why you thought I thought I had conclusive evidence that you were scum. I don't think I escalated my attack on you, though.

Your "Wild accusation" is wild because you made so huge of a stretch, claiming me to be scum AND extrapolating my scum-buddy from some really elaborate plan that doesn't even make sense. Plus, the fact that you don't even put a vote with your case is suspicious.

I'm also a little suspicious. On post 94, you demonstrated your understanding of the numbers and logic. So, why didn't you mention the towns best strategy in the beginning.

You say that my elaborate plan (which I don't think is that elaborate) doesn't make sense? But you also say that I have understanding of the numbers and logic?

You ask me why I didn't mention the town's best strategy in the beginning...this sounds very much like an ad hominem attack, attacking me instead of my points. Well, to answer the question anyway, I did not think much of the game setup at the beginning, and even if I did you would have beaten me to it.

[jonathantan86]

Have you played a mafiagame online before? How much experience do you have out of this site? Please answer.

If this is really important, yes I have, but only one. Apart from that, I am in two games currently including this one.

First of all, I actually attacked all your points. I defended all your attacks. Hell, I even made a point against you (about not putting me at L-1), and YOU completely ignored it.

I'm not sure what "attacks" of mine you are defending against. You say it's a huge stretch to believe that you are the scum and that you have made all the plans that I've posted, but have not actually said why my scum plans are wrong ("ridiculous").

That's why I mentioned "ad hominem". It seems to me that you were trying to divert attention onto my supposed lack of pro-townness by asking me why I didn't explain the strategy, and did not actually explain why my plans are wrong. (I was just pointing this out, if the rest of the players disagree that this is "ad hominem" it's fine.)

I did not vote for you because there were already quite a number of votes and I don't have conclusive evidence that you are scum. It's just that I'm thinking of what the scum would do and so far you fit the "profile" the most. It was not my intention to lynch you...and I did not expect anyone to just vote for you without discussing it first.

If I really believed you were scum, yes I would have put you at L-1. As it is now, though, I only have a "profile" to go on.

To everyone:
1) I think that the scum's best plan is to have at least one member (maybe the other can avoid controversy) actively engage in conversation to weed out powerroles, probing if necessary, even if it means risking a scum-tell. (The numbers are in an earlier post.) Do you agree with me?
2) Supposing I'm right (even if you think I'm not), who fits the profile above the most?

[jonathantan86]

I will put a vote on killa seven to pressure him to speak. I do not mean to lynch the lurker just yet though.

Vote: killa seven

This puts him at L-2.

For some reason, people (except for TSPN) seem to be ignoring my two questions which I'll quote here for convenience (maybe it's because not many people have posted):

1) I think that the scum's best plan is to have at least one member (maybe the other can avoid controversy) actively engage in conversation to weed out powerroles, probing if necessary, even if it means risking a scum-tell. (The numbers are in an earlier post.) Do you agree with me?
2) Supposing I'm right (even if you think I'm not), who fits the profile above the most?

[jonathantan86]

Hmm...I see that many people disagree with me that it is possible to distinguish between power roles and townies by certain conversation. But I have quotes like these:

Um. . . no. Pro-town powerroles ought to attempt to hunt scum like everyone else. Having noncontributing powerroles is an excellent way to get powerroles outed.

This. Lurking and playing quiet as a power role is a great way to show everyone you're a power role.

Which seems to say that if power roles stay silent, they might be recognised as one. So the scum might force conversation in such a way that power roles are caught between a rock and a hard place--either join in, draw attention to him/herself and risk being lynched, or retreat and risk being seen as a non-contributing power role (by the scum, since they know that the person isn't scum).

This is just my opinion though.

Also, yes, it is in scum's best interest to be unpredictable, but as far as I know Bodyguard is not a common setup and thus scum might choose a behaviour that statistically benefits them.

[jonathantan86]

that was sorta my point, i think u were scum in one game. but to me you allways look scummy and are usually town.

Um...don't you have anything more to say about the game? For example, what do you think of BaB's town strategy and the conversation that followed from it?

[jonathantan86]

The game is almost a month old. And you are the best I've seen.

I'm assuming "the best" means the best candidate for scum. Hmm...

I do lean towards that as well, but what do you think of killa seven? He/she has not really been contributing, and some people think it is good to generally lunch lurkers.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&&start=0

[jonathantan86]

Even if I was trying to appear townie (which I'm not), that's not nearly enough to get away for a pro-town lynch. Could you at least find something scummy I did for me to defend? Something genuinely scummy? Because as a townie there are reasons to want to appear townie also. It's not inherently scummy.

Well, you're referring to Alabaska in this post. So why do you vote for me? I *am* leaning towards that vote, but I'm just saying that you are at the top of my list.

That's sort of what k7 does, lurk and not contribute. But anyway, jonathan, I'd love to hear more about what "some people" think? Do you think lynching lurkers is pro-town? If so, why? And why do you think bab is the best candidate for lynch?

The "some people" I'm referring to are the posters in the thread that I linked. I do think that lynching lurkers is pro-town, yes, so I'm OK with a killa seven lynch.

I think BaB is the best candidate because of my profile of scum, which strong possibility I don't think anyone has convinced me is not there. The reasons given were to do with the impossibility of determining scum/townie/powerrole from conversation, which I still disagree with (as described in one of my earlier posts). Although I acknowledge that the profile is not much to go on, that's why I don't push very strongly for a BaB lynch. Other people are voting BaB too, but quite possibly for different reasons.

[jonathantan86]

Jonathan: what do you think of Killa?

I think he's a lurker, and I think lurkers should generally be lynched (refer to my earlier post). And his current spate of posts shows that he's not really interested in contributing, so that gives me even more reason to vote him. My vote's currently on him, by the way.

I've been prodded twice in this game day, so I'll try to post more often.

[jonathantan86]

Then from 8-12 he focuses on discussing scum's best strategy, which doesn't help town, but once again makes him look like he's contributing.

Well...I gave my reasons for thinking that BaB was (at that time) my best scum candidate, and was waiting for other people to comment on it. So to me that does help town.

he backs this up with a thread so that the idea doesn't come from him.
He wants to fit in with everyone else, and if "some people" want to lynch lurkers, then I should do.
How does it help the town to be a sheep?

I did specifically say that I agree with that position. How does backing up with a thread make the idea "not come from me", especially since I was the one who brought up that thread in the first place?

And I don't see anything wrong in being "overly carefull".

Contradiction.
Vote jonathatan86

So...he is astute enough to spot the "contradiction" but not to comment on other parts of the game. I'm happy with my vote on him.

[jonathantan86]

Jonathantan: Do you think Killa's lurking is scummy or just not helpful? I'm wary of the size of the setup and I really don't want to mislynch today so I'd rather have a better reason to lynch someone than just inactivity.

I definitely think that Killa's lurking is not helpful. So I think that's scummy, because not saying anything (including scum-hunting or defending yourself from accusations) can only favour the scum.

As for the size of the set up...yes I share your concerns. However if we just leave killa to lurk like this, there's no stopping him from doing so the entire game (and maybe in other games as well). So for meta-game reasons, I think we should lynch him. If we don't care about other games: If he's scum there's no way we can catch him (if we do not accept his lurking as a scum-tell) unless we use a cop investigation on him. If he's town, well...we would be wasting a cop investigation on him. So the penalty for not lynching a lurker is greater than zero.

Killa: You're at L-1 now. Are you town or scum? If you're town (as you would probably claim to be), please help by posting more and defending yourself.

[jonathantan86]

Interesting. That would explain it.

Um explain what?

[jonathantan86]

Still no news from killa?

[jonathantan86]

Okay, so killa seven has posted reasons on why he voted me. I don't think those are good reasons, so I'll defend myself.

Not liking him inquiring about "what happens if the mafia kills the body guard"

I already explained this. The mafiascum wiki was quite vague on the bodyguard role, and if the mechanics were different from what the mod confirmed, BaB's plan wouldn't work.

he seems to bring up discussions they kinda back off not wanting to "provide scum with info so he wont answer"

I did contribute in the discussions that I did bring up.

the percentage thing is corny..

How so? Do you think it's correct?

him early on not for lynching lurkers then going after me for lurking..

If you mean I'm a hypocrite for lurking and then calling you out, well we've already discussed this before.

Okay now BaB can reveal what those initials are.

[jonathantan86]

(Killa ignored my question once again, so I'm assuming that he has no additional reasons for his vote):

Well he did give some reasons for why he voted me. I think that's what you were looking for

[jonathantan86]

I really don't favor a k7 lynch.

Why not? You don't think lurking is scummy?

Also, BaB, what were your results on your investigation (the one your mysterious initials are referring to)?

[jonathantan86]

No. Do you? If so, why?

I definitely think that Killa's lurking is not helpful. So I think that's scummy, because not saying anything (including scum-hunting or defending yourself from accusations) can only favour the scum.

I am a bit suspicious of your defence of Killa.

[jonathantan86]

After im lynched and confirmed town, what will you say next?

You're not really helping much.

You were saying earlier how you would expect power roles to always lay low, and now lurking is scummy because only scum have reason to lurk. . . I think you need to start seeing the game in a few more shades of gray.

For the record, I don't expect them to lay low...I just think that there is intrinsically more benefit for them to lay low compared to a non-powerrole, but they might not want to do that because they too need to scum-hunt or lurking would show scum who the power roles are. Right now k7 is at a point where he should post much more in order for the rest of us to attempt to determine if he is scum or not, but he isn't...that outweighs any concern of a powerrole "outing" himself, if k7 is a power role.

[jonathantan86]

thanks for helping the scum determine who is a powerrole.

So you're saying that you are a powerrole? If you reread the thread, almost nobody thinks that keeping silent indicates that you are a powerrole (I am one of the, and perhaps the only, exception). If you really were town, you wouldn't reveal yourself, not in this fashion at least. I think you are the best lynch for today.

BaB: Your vote is still on me. Who do you think is the best lynch for today?

TSPN: It's true that some townies lurk, but we have repeatedly asked k7 to post more but he doesn't. Not to sidetrack but...what do you think of k7's quote above?

[jonathantan86]

I don't feel comfortable with any person's lynch right now. Do you think there is someone that is lynch-worthy? Well, I'm not sure you should answer that.

Why shouldn't I answer this?

I think he's behaving like he always does. Have you read another game he's been in yet? I'm starting to think you're tunneling on k7 because there's heat on you and you think he's an easy lynch.

As someone said (forgot who), metas aren't always a good way to determine scumness or townness. I did not notice any "heat" on me...my only votes (at that time) were BaB (who at the end said his vote was more of pressure, correct me if I'm wrong) and killa seven (who voted me for very weak reasons, in my opinion). And besides, you could be tunneling on me because k7 is your scum partner too.

I'm most suspicious of TSPN and k7 at that moment, although CML's claim request does raise some suspicion.

[jonathantan86]

The statement that TSPN quoted was by TDC and not me, by the way.

I posted about lynching killa here:

As for the size of the set up...yes I share your concerns. However if we just leave killa to lurk like this, there's no stopping him from doing so the entire game (and maybe in other games as well). So for meta-game reasons, I think we should lynch him. If we don't care about other games: If he's scum there's no way we can catch him (if we do not accept his lurking as a scum-tell) unless we use a cop investigation on him. If he's town, well...we would be wasting a cop investigation on him. So the penalty for not lynching a lurker is greater than zero.

In addition, he voted someone (me) for quite weak reasons (which I have replied to). These reasons are why I think he's the best lynch, and that's why I don't remove my vote.

[jonathantan86]

Ah....I misread CML's post. I thought he wanted a claim from k7.

Okay...do you think it's best for me to claim now?

[jonathantan86]

After im lynched and confirmed town, what will you say next?

You're not really helping much.

You were saying earlier how you would expect power roles to always lay low, and now lurking is scummy because only scum have reason to lurk. . . I think you need to start seeing the game in a few more shades of gray.

For the record, I don't expect them to lay low...I just think that there is intrinsically more benefit for them to lay low compared to a non-powerrole, but they might not want to do that because they too need to scum-hunt or lurking would show scum who the power roles are. Right now k7 is at a point where he should post much more in order for the rest of us to attempt to determine if he is scum or not, but he isn't...that outweighs any concern of a powerrole "outing" himself, if k7 is a power role.

thanks for helping the scum determine who is a powerrole.

What do you all think of k7's statement above? To me, it seems that he's hinting that he himself is a powerrole. I doubt that a real powerrole would do that, therefore he might be acting as one to avoid a lynch.

I find this quite suspicious, and this is one of the reasons why my vote is still on him.

I find TSPN suspicious because of his persistent defence of k7.

[jonathantan86]

Seriously, would you respond to the pertinent points on k7's meta? Engage them? Instead of keeping on shouting "k7 is scummy, tsn is scummy for saying 'no, this is how k7 behaves?'"

And the dizzying logic of k7 said the same thing about powerroles that me and bab said, but he's implying that he's a powerrole (doesn't read that way to me), and therefore he must not be a powerrole, and is scum. . . does that really make sense to you? Do you truly believe that? I find that hard to believe.

Okay, I've bit the bullet and read two of k7's previous games. Yes he does post sporadically and does not write very much, much like his behaviour here. But in this game, he seems to be especially unhelpful...he doesn't even seem to bother to defend himself.

I still think k7 was trying to imply that he is a power role in that post. What do the others think?

[jonathantan86]

Quite honestly, no idea who you're talking about.

Agreed. I didn't notice the cop breadcrumbs though, but will wait for BaB to explain.

If i was a power role why would you keep bringing it up tryna get me NK?

Because I don't think you're a power role. If that is really hinting you're a power role, I think you're scum trying to pass yourself off as a power role. (But most people don't agree that you're hinting.)

[jonathantan86]

I agree that this is suspicious.

Unvote

Vote: CML

[jonathantan86]

I would have claimed, but CML hammered me. Well I thought that Alabaska was scum because of the way he quickly latched onto voting for me, so if I were the last remaining person I would have lost.