Mafia 90-Lolwat? Mafia, Game Over, Mafia Win

[Penguins of the Serengeti]

Vino, that's exactly what you did with my PM Gambit! You just admitted to acting exactly how you think scum would act surrounding a scum hunt.

Huh? Please explain it so that a dummy like me can understand it.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Yeah, I don't really get it.
Mostly because I've been awake for 72 hours and have too much sugar in my system.

[GnKoichi]

Vino said that the more people who are aware of a scum hunting technique, the less effective it is. If he was aware of this, why would he disarm my scum hunting attempt surrounding the PM? Town might have done this by mistake, talking about the gambit in a way that inadvertently disarms it. Except Vino has proven that he thinks of the game in a way where he must have been aware that his actions were going to make people aware of the situation, and thus make it less effective. Only scum would do this knowingly.

[Head_Honcho]

Honcho, if it was a scum gambit, I didn't think his scum partner would take up the offer of outing the both of them. If it was a town gambit, I didn't think any scum would be dumb enough to take the bait. If there's two scum then the chances that both will take the bait is slim, and then the one who did would get lynched. If both happen to take it then both scum are reasonably confirmed to GnKoichi, and highly suspicious to everybody else. In the end, no matter how it swings, we end up lynching a mason, which we don't want to do.

This makes no sense. Am I missing something?

[Penguins of the Serengeti]

Vino said that the more people who are aware of a scum hunting technique, the less effective it is. If he was aware of this, why would he disarm my scum hunting attempt surrounding the PM? Town might have done this by mistake, talking about the gambit in a way that inadvertently disarms it. Except Vino has proven that he thinks of the game in a way where he must have been aware that his actions were going to make people aware of the situation, and thus make it less effective. Only scum would do this knowingly.

Please explain again, this time, assuming that I have a single-digit IQ and that I'm drooling all over my keyboard.

[GnKoichi]

Okay, no one can claim that this is me talking down to anyone. PotS asked for the dumb person version. Here it is:

- Vino ruined a scum hunt attempt by calling attention to it.

- Vino later made a statement that he thinks scum hunts are less effective the more people are aware of them.

- If Vino thinks it benefits the scum team to show people how certain scum hunts work, why would he do it?

Answer: Because he, himself, is scum.

[Penguins of the Serengeti]

OK.

Now assume that I have an IQ in the NEGATIVE triple digits and only two brain cells, one that stops me from urinating all over my chair, and a second one that inhibits the first.

[Vino]

Vino said that the more people who are aware of a scum hunting technique, the less effective it is. If he was aware of this, why would he disarm my scum hunting attempt surrounding the PM? Town might have done this by mistake, talking about the gambit in a way that inadvertently disarms it. Except Vino has proven that he thinks of the game in a way where he must have been aware that his actions were going to make people aware of the situation, and thus make it less effective. Only scum would do this knowingly.

Totally

different thing.

I disarmed the gambit because it logically didn't make sense, because it focuses on masons which we don't want to lynch, and because I didn't think anybody would bite anyways. Me disarming the gambit doesn't fall under the "scumhunting suffers statistical arbitrage" category. Statistical arbitrage is a macro concept that occurs with a huge number of people, like say, everybody on this forum, and the disarm was a micro situation that happened between less than eight people. Please go take some economic courses.

Example, if someone were to say, "Gambits are a common scum tactic," then everybody would start looking for gambits, so scum wouldn't make any more gambits and would start accusing town of making gambits, which eliminates the efficacy of searching for gambits to find scum. That is completely different from saying, "Koichi is doing a gambit," and then laying the internals of that gambit on the table for everybody to see. If you want to argue that my disarming your gambit was anti-town, then I would love to debate on the reasons why, but arguing that it is because of statistical arbitrage won't work.

Serengeti, he's saying that I'm contradicting myself by pointing out statistical arbitrage in scum hunting techniques while also making everybody aware of his gambit. What he doesn't understand is the concept of statistical arbitrage.

Honcho, point something out for me to explain. I outlined every possible scenario of the gambit and why they were all unlikely. Koichi's gambit comes down to either the moderator making a silly mistake in (likely) only his PM, or him intentionally making up this mistake to try to catch some scum or frame some masons. Do you not follow the logic or do you think that it's faulty?

[GnKoichi]

OK.

Now assume that I have an IQ in the NEGATIVE triple digits and only two brain cells, one that stops me from urinating all over my chair, and a second one that inhibits the first.

- Vino said my cake was bad.

- Vino said only bad people hate cake.

- Vino is a bad person.

As for you your defense of yourself, Vino, whether you were talking about an idea larger than the game or one withing it (and yes, I understood your macroconcept perfectly), it still shows an understanding of the game which you yourself went against. The larger concept works on a smaller scale as well. You understood that the more people are looking for something, the less effective they are. Still, you made everyone look for something in my gambit, thus disarming it. Whether or not we lynch a mason or whether it made sense was not your decision to make. It had a chance of working, until you posted, and then it didn't. Now I know that you understood this from the beginning, which means your action was very anti-town. Die scum die.

P.S. Seriously? Telling me to go take an economics course? This is a game. You don't know anything about me, so resorting to this kind of low-class insult just shows what type of person you are. A null-tell in terms of your scumminess, but very informative in terms of your personality.

[Numberfourteen]

Wow... what exactly are we arguing?

Are we actually doing any scum hunting recently?

I'm kinda at a standstill, Litral is still the only person I have a real suspicion about, but now that he has been replaced it makes it hard to know what to do now. I definantly want to hear something from his replacement when he reads everything (Sorry I forgot your name already)

[Vino]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an insult. Sometimes I get frustrated when people don't follow my logic. I don't want to play a negative game and I hope nobody is taking any of this personally.

You're right, I did understand that announcing the mechanics of your gambit would disarm it. That's why I did it. Not an example of statistical arbitrage, though. Let's talk about why I disarmed your gambit.

a) Nobody was going to fall for it. It was quite an obvious bait. You may differ on this opinion, but for reasons I already laid out, the gambit looked unattractive no matter what the scenarios were.

b) We don't want to lynch masons day 1. A number of people have said it, and persuaded me of it after the Serengeti bandwagon. It's better to preserve our masons until we can confirm them as townies than to risk mistakenly killing a townly one.

c) Another reason I forget. It must have been unimportant or I would have remembered it.

I don't think your gambit is a scum tell, Koichi. It was an equally viable thing to do as scum or as town. I called it out, as I have every right to do, because I disagreed with its direction and didn't want to see its results come to pass.

* Technically, statistical arbitrage is actually a method of using the knowledge that everybody has common knowledge of the stock market to predict what everybody else is going to do, and thus predict the stock market. However, I'm using it in a different sense in this situation, to describe the effect that when everybody is aware of a scum hunting technique, its value changes.

- Vino said only bad people hate cake.

No. When I pointed out statistical arbitrage, I was illustrating that common scumhunting techniques lose their efficacy, not that making information more prevalent has a negative effect on the town. I was pointing out that Cydonia's "Lynch all Liars" accusation was not effective because all the scum know about it. I was

not

trying to say that dispersing information about scum hunts to the town is a bad thing. That's such a general statement that it can't be applied to every situation. Some scum hunts may be more useful as public information, some scum hunts may be more useful as private information.

[GnKoichi]

You've disagreed with the details of how I caught you in this, but you've admitted to the core of my point. You disarmed my trap knowingly. It wasn't an unfortunate side effect of your comments. It was your objective. ANY scum hunting technique has a chance of working. It wasn't hurting town to try. Also, if we CATCH a scum mason, that throws the not-lynching-a-mason idea out the window, because scum is scum. Or do you think we should let a scum mason off the hook if we have the chance to catch one? Because that's exactly what you just admitted to doing. Yes, you have the right to disarm any trap you want to, and I have the right to call you scum for doing so.

[GnKoichi]

And seriously? Quoting the cake thing? Why not argue with my actual point, not my joking attempt to indulge PotS?

[Vino]

Eh. Watev. Everybody knows what your point is.

From your point of view if you are town it hurts town for me to disarm your gambit because you think you are town. From my point of view, you may be scum, and I can't ascertain your motives. Since the prospective payoff of the gambit did not measure up to the risk that you are a scum trying to lynch a mason, I disarmed it. If you find you disagree then I would suggest you make your gambits more compelling and less disarmable in the future.

[Yosarian2]

No. When I pointed out statistical arbitrage, I was illustrating that common scumhunting techniques lose their efficacy

That's not actually true, for the best scumhunting techniques, since the best scumhunting techniques rely on either A. catching people for doing actions that just benifit scum more then town; or, to put it another way, look for stuff that scum would love to do if they thought they could get away with it; or B. rely on psychology and instintive reactions that point to natural inherent differences between scum and town, that can be spotted even if the person is trying to hide them. (Although, Penguins, bussing actually is one that is subject to it; if everyone expects bussing, then scum have no reason to vote for each other, so they don't.)

Anyway, enough theory. This argument is silly, and completly irrelevent. I will mention that I specifically avoided speculating on Gn's motives because if he was setting a trap I didn't want to give it away to any possible scum masons who might theoretically fall for it, and I'm still not entierly clear why Veno didn't do the same thing.

[Knight of Cydonia]

And LAL is perfectly valid if the accused is (as roflcopter was trying to do) lying to brush off a perfectly valid accusation. So why did you do that, Vino?

[Vino]

A. catching people for doing actions that just benifit scum more then town; or, to put it another way, look for stuff that scum would love to do if they thought they could get away with it; or B. rely on psychology and instintive reactions that point to natural inherent differences between scum and town, that can be spotted even if the person is trying to hide them.

Now here's some good scum hunting. Eventually, scum are going to have to do truly scummy things, not just silly scum tells that any town could make, and when they do I'll be watching.

And LAL is perfectly valid if the accused is (as roflcopter was trying to do) lying to brush off a perfectly valid accusation. So why did you do that, Vino?

Do what? Brush off a valid accusation, or accuse someone of lying? I didn't do either? Or are you talking about something else?

[Head_Honcho]

Honcho, point something out for me to explain. I outlined every possible scenario of the gambit and why they were all unlikely. Koichi's gambit comes down to either the moderator making a silly mistake in (likely) only his PM, or him intentionally making up this mistake to try to catch some scum or frame some masons. Do you not follow the logic or do you think that it's faulty?

I think you just answered your own question. As koichi's saying, I can't see a townie reason for disarming this gambit. Whether koichi is scum or not, this was an opportunity to gain information. We're never going to be able to 'confirm' masons (correct me if I'm wrong here) without them dying, so any opportunity to gain information is welcome. What doesn't make sense to me about your refusal to see how this played out is that I can't see an outcome to the gambit that hurts the town in the long run. I'm interested in PotS' response on this same point, since she also opposed the gambit, though less vocally.

[Vino]

Cops?

[Empking's Alt]

Yos is obv town.

[Lowell]

Still here. Minimal internet until Tuesday.

[GnKoichi]

I'm going to be honest, if the majority of town continues to pussyfoot around, we're going to lose this game. I lost my first game here because town was completely incapable of defending themselves. I don't want to lose this game just because town doesn't care.

[Lowell]

I'm going to be honest, if the majority of town continues to pussyfoot around, we're going to lose this game. I lost my first game here because town was completely incapable of defending themselves. I don't want to lose this game just because town doesn't care.

I think we're doing okay. This is a weird comment.

[GnKoichi]

If we miss a deadline, that gives scum the advantage, because they basically get a free kill against us. A lynch is more than just a chance to kill scum. It's a chance to gain information. Without that, we have no chance.

[Penguins of the Serengeti]

Can we get back to lynching Litral's replacement or Empking? Thank you.