Civilization Mafia - Town Wins!

[EmpTyger]

Everybody stop all other discussion.

Vote: No lynch

The town a huge advantage: our superior number. Every townsperson can do *something* of value at night, and this value increases with each passing night. Therefore, unless we can guarantee lynching an antitown, there is no reason to lynch at this point (or unless we are or think we are in or about to be in lynch-or-lose, for that matter)- the risk of wasting in lynch a townsperson, who will be growing stronger every night, more than offsets the chance of hitting an antitown.

Any other discussion will be of most help to antitowns in their making the most informed decisions tonight. I repeat:

Do not discuss suspicions of others players today; it hurts the town.

However, there is one question which should be discussed today, especially with it already having been opened: whether it is better to advance or develop, and in which manner to do so. Since everyone has already acted in Night 1, everyone has had to formulate a basic individual strategy. Thus there are 2 options, with no lynching being almost certainly correct for quite a few days (I would assume through the Day 4 or 5 breakeven point calculated by Puzzle in [4]):

1) Everyone continue individually. This randomness might stymie antitowns, while leaving the survivors in a sufficiently advanced position, regardless of which position exactly, to dominate.

2) The other option would be to coordinate systematically, giving the antitowns information and hence a chance to sabotage. However, with the proper setup, we might be in a greatly superior position

[3) I suppose a compromise solution might be a generalized systematic approach, something in the form of everyone who did A Night 1 do X Night 2; who did B do Y; C, Z; etc. But my initial reaction is that the random element hurts the town more in this instance, so either of the above would be better.]

I myself haven't done enough calculations on potential plans to fully evaluate these yet.

Random FoS: Thok

[EmpTyger]

inHim:
All antitown groups are going to be trying their hardest to take advantage of the setup. The town, if they were to not do likewise, potentially cede them a huge advantage. But more importantly, the town would lose a critical ability: the ability to identify antitown by suboptimal play. The motive for the town is to maximize their chances of winning, so that suspicion falls on players who are not playing optimally (from the town’s point of view), who presumably are antitown. So a townsperson’s discouraging an optimal play has two effects: it would excuse any suboptimal play an antitown would do and also prevent them from being picked out by it.

I am sympathetic to the danger of the game not being fun, but I urge you to reconsider.


Thok:

<snip>The random FOS is a nice touch.<snip>

I’m glad you liked my little trap. Now take your paw out and vote no-lynch. Because that still is the correct play.

[EmpTyger]

Metagame question: Why does this game have *20* players?

The basic game of Civ3 had 16 civilizations. But I am concerned that assuming 16 civilizations = 16 townspeople with 4 barbarian antitowns is a mistake. For one thing, a 4:1 ratio seems too high for the town. For another, massclaims Day 1 or ever pretty much automatically breaks the game *too* easily to be plausible. If the setup were 16 civilizations + n barbarians, I would have thought that the game would have had more players to allow a larger barbarian horde, setting aside the problem of massclaims. But I can’t see only 4 antitowns as plausible, at least not without them having safer claims. And if there are more than 4 antitowns, there must be less than 16 protowns.

I don’t think massclaiming is a good idea right now, but this should probably be rediscussed whatever day we decide to begin lynching, when there will have been more information obtained.


d_rouge:

Checking in.
I agree that there's probably a way to break this game and we should try to find it. I'm not that sure that this includes going no lynch, however. The information we get from vote patterns may very well complement the information we get from night abilities, thus giving us a better understanding of the situation.<snip>

Theoretically, no-lynching prolongs the game, which allows maximal development. This helps the town most, having the numerical advantage and thus the most potential at nighttime. Lynching, besides shortening the game, moreover works against maintaining the numerical advantage.
[That probably is the reasoning why no-lynching is traditionally bad for the town: the town is generally weakest at nighttime.]

With no-lynching being optimal, voting (and discussion of suspicions) becomes counterproductive. It gives the mafia more information about making their decisions. The only circumstance I can think of which would be worth announcing before the end of the no-lynching would be if an investigation revealing someone to be guilty, lest that information be lost before a lynching day. Vote patterns are meaningless because the votes are meaningless, because there won’t be a lynch. And the town will have a chance to obtain vote patterns whatever day we decide to lynch (or earlier- whatever day we consider ending the no-lynching).


VisMaior:

I think it would be better of a plan if the nations with the most probably good investigative UUs would go forward in the tech tree to get those units, and only the rest would investigate/protect. Since we do not know who has wich civ, we could agree on the civs who get to advance and we would not disclose who it really is. Any toughts?

We probably need to do something like your plan may or may not work, but I’m a little nervous about presuming the 16:4 setup. (For one thing, if we are assuming that setup, we should be massclaiming right now.) On the other hand, I don’t really have anything better off the top of my head. Let me think about it a little more.


inHim:
Forgive me, but if you prefer playing “normally” then why not play unthemed games?

[EmpTyger]

Thok:

<snip>EmpTyger, we do learn something from random votes because we see who tries to follow the bandwagons, and what bandwagons don't take off. Go read Hospital mafia in normal. Because nearly everybody in that game is a doctor, a no-lynch strategy is useful. However, most of the scum in that game were caught because of discussion arising from random voting.

Um... what??? Firstly, so far every day in Hospital mafia has had a lynch, so the example is moot. Secondly, on whatever day we decide to stop no-lynching will we will have the same opportunity to catch scum. Thirdly, if the optimal play is a no-lynch, there shouldn’t be any bandwagons. [And finally, I’d rather not comment on what may or may not be a useful strategy for a game-in-progress!]


Puzzle:

<snip>I think we could have an alternative to a direct mass claim by simply claiming "main game" or "extension", which gives about nothing to scums and allows us to get a better overview of the setup.<snip>

What advantage would there be in doing this today? Or on any day when we no-lynch? The drawback, incidentally, is that it gives the mafia a chance to discuss their claims at night to more effectively coordinate with the better overview of the setup. The only reason I can see would be to confirm a 16:4 setup for the purpose of better determining nightactions, but if there's a 16:4 setup we can massclaim on a later day to achieve a victory almost irrespective of what we have done previously.

So I think it far better to play on assuming an effectively indeterminate setup, in which case the only thing worth discussing today is whether nightchoices should be strategized, and if so, how.

[EmpTyger]

VisM:

Actually, I think I showed that No Lynch and investigative unit building has approximately the same chance of succesful scumfind as an educated guess lynch, only that the educated guess happens today, and we still can do the investigation thing, effectively doubling our chances to find scum. Is there an error in my flow of toughts? I think not.
Also, some people advancing others investigating might be worth a look into, as I pointed out earlyer.

I think your math in [38] is wrong. 10% chance/night of 1 player finding guilty is more or less correct. (It depends on the specific ratio less any nightkills/blocks.) But the percentage across the entire town is a simple addition: n townspeople gives a (10*n)% chance (assuming everyone is investigate). So with this many townspeople, we have a very good chance of finding guilt.

I’m not convinced a blanket investigation strategy is best, however- it might be better for the town to have some combination of defensive and investigative units. But it’s significantly better than all but the most confident of educated guessing. Which, incidentally, isn’t precluded from being done on a future day if the town’s RNG does happen to be that unlucky. And moreover an educated guessed lynched, if incorrect, would decrease the town’s population. Which would both reduces our effectiveness that night and all future nights.


Flay:

<snip>... and if it helps, I'm a Main Game civ.

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. In any case, no one else should make a full or partial claim until they or someone else shows that that is prudent.


Puzzle:

<snip>By the way, if some of us didn't make investigation units last night, no need to say so. Just pretend you did for now : no need to indicate to scums who can check them tonight or not.

Er, no one should feign or give *any* indication of what they did last night, regardless of what they did do.

[EmpTyger]

VisM:
:oops: Okay, that was embarrassing oversimplication I made. You are right; it’s definitely more complex than simple addition.
But your math is also incorrect.

Let:
I = total innocent
G = total guilty
T = total town (T = I + G)
P = probability of success
s = chance of success for 1 townsperson on a given night
S = chance of success for all townspeople on a given night

The chance s of success for 1 townsperson is given by s = P * G / T
Thus the chance of 1 townsperson failing is 1 - s
The chance that every townsperson fails is (1 - s)^I
Thus the chance S of at least one townsperson succeeding is given by S = 1 - (1 - s)^I

With the 16:4 setup, I = 16, G = 4, T = 20, and letting P = 40%:
s = 8%, S = ~74%

More unfavorable setups are not necessarily worse:
With 1 having died last night and 1 dying tonight (I = 14, T = 18):
s = ~9%; S = ~73%
With 2 dead tonight (I = 13, T = 17):
s = ~9%; S = ~72%

With G = 5 (I = 12):
s = ~12%; S = ~78%
With G = 6 (I = 11):
s = ~14%; S = ~81%

Or let’s consider the absolute worst case, when nobody has an investigative unit tonight so the earliest investigation is Night 3. With 1 dying night 1, and letting 2 die on Nights 2 and 3: (T = 15)
G = 4: (I = 11)
s = ~11%; S = ~71%
G = 5: (I = 10)
s = ~13%; S = ~76%
G = 6: (I = 9)
s = 16%; S = ~79%

And this doesn’t take into account multiple nights of investigation, access to better units increasing P, the chance of multiple successful investigations, the ancillary benefits of the Night 1 nightchoices, or the benefits of successful investigation of innocents.
QED?

The more I look at this, the more a blanket investigative strategy appeals.

[EmpTyger]

VisM:
We each were making [different] errors in combining the chance/townsperson/night to determine the total chance for the town. I’m not completely sure how you got your numbers, so it’s a little hard for me to pinpoint why they’re wrong, but I’m pretty sure it was in tabulating the cumulative probability.


rajrhcpfreak:

<snip>well are you saying that we should all be investgative or we should be spread out?

I’m honestly not yet sure. Instinctively I’m uncomfortable about making the antitowns’ nightchoices easy by publicizing our blanket nightactions. On the other hand, the math seems too good. I’d have to do more math to determine whether there is any advantage (and if so, how much) in diluting the investigatives with protectives.

[EmpTyger]

Ok, I see the difference now. you just calculated that 1 townsperson succeeds in investigating, while I calculated that at least 1 scum is catched. Totally different numbers.

No, I am calculating that at least 1 scum is caught. Can you tell me what formula you are using to generate your numbers? That might help identify the error.

[EmpTyger]

The only reason I see to discourage lurking today is to ensure that everyone is on the same page about what we are doing. And I think the simplest way to do that is to wait for those who haven’t been participating as much to cast no-lynch votes.

But let me repeat that there is *no* point in discussing suspicions today. Write them down or type them up and save them for another day. The only thing to be discussed today is the optimal plan for tonight. (if not the next few nights)

As for that, I see 4 possibilities:
1) Make assignments of Player A -> Player B (as in [76]). I’m nervous about the idea of specific assignments, because I’m instinctively against creating the opportunity for the mafia to interfere.
2) Make assignments of Civ A -> Player A. But that still has the problem of discerning the setup of civilizations.
3) Divide the set of possible civilizations, i.e. so that some focus on protection while the rest investigate, but leaving the assignment to the player. This has some of the disadvantages of the unknown civilization setup, and also some of the disadvantages of leaving things unorganized.
4) No specific nighttime instructions, letting everyone determine their own nightaction as they will. This makes it hardest for the mafia to interfere, and also allows what happened Night 1 to be best taken advantage of. But this leaves the town so disorganized that it cannot take best advantage of its abilities.

I’m still not confident enough to recommend a specific course of nightactions as optimal (or dissuade one as suboptimal). And there might be other possibilities I am overlooking- permutations of doing one thing tonight and something else another night. I am particularly wondering about delaying mass investigations until Night 3 or even 4, to give everyone a chance to build an investigative unit. (Of course, this might leave the town vulnerable to mafia blocking.) Perhaps something like “by night X, Y should investigate Z”?

Anyone else have any ideas about this, analyzed or not?

[EmpTyger]

d_rouge:

I agree with Puzzle here that number 1 is probably the best option, since there's not much scum can do about that without casting suspicion upon themselves.
The only problem might be if two scum wind up in a row, so that one is supposed to check the other, but I guess that changing the order everyday is a good way to solve that. It may waste us a few investigations, however, because if A succed in investigating B and finds him innocent, of course tells nothing about that the day after, and whoever checks B the night after is wasting his investigation.
I don't see a solution to this...

Has any analysis been done about whether there’s any advantage to announcing innocent results? I’ve been assuming there isn’t based on conventional strategy, but with this setup that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I suppose it depends on what protective roles we might be having.

I’m not even sure about guilty results. They should definitely be announced immediately, not only to prevent accidental reinvestigation, but more importantly, it prevents valuable results being lost to a future nightkill. But I’m not certain what the optimal is for the town to do after a single guilty result, say, A announcing B is guilty. I’m not sure whether it is best to lynch or no-lynch; [at least] 1 of {A, B} is guilty, but I don’t see any advantage in guessing. If a third party has an innocent results on either A or B (or a corroborating guilty result) then a mislynch would trade 1 innocent for 2 guilty, so it might be worth it then. Alternatively, having B claim their civilization to see if there’s a counterclaim from a third party might achieve the scenario (and if not, perhaps having A likewise claim). On the other hand, no-lynching with the results announced guarantees that the townsperson gets another nightaction, maintaining our numerical advantage while leaving all options for a future day.


armlx:

The only problem I see is after a few nights the scum get a bunch of RB's and block our units. Still, they will randomly miss with the RB and we will hit them.

This isn’t a problem, because the town outnumbers the antitown. So even if scum get a bunch of troops at night, the town will get more. This is another reason why it is better to no-lynch to ensure that our numerical advantage is preserved.

I’m still not completely convinced about option 1, but it seems that its potential for antitown interference is more than outweighed by its advantages.

[EmpTyger]

-Some units have a Bombard value - these can be used as roleblockers. The player can choose to have the Bombard-capable unit target the player's cities or units. Should they target the cities, then that player's unit production or era-advancement for the night will be nullified. Should they target the units, then all that player's units will be unable to perform any actions.

1 mafia with 2 roleblockers shuts down (potentially) 2 townies.

Hm. This is a good point.

Unvote: No Lynch

since I can't see any way around this.

[EmpTyger]

Thok:
That’s not the point; the point is that bombardment allows antitowns to match a town’s development. So the advantage I saw to no-lynching is lost. So now that we’re voting...

You were strongly against no-lynching without any analysis (with what Puzzle called “blind opposition”) when I was advocating it was in the town’s best interest. But when VizM showed it wasn’t, you continued to defend that idea.

You accused me of “flooding with numbers” when you defended VizM’s numbers, again without any analysis, in [67]. Yet not only were my revised numbers correct and VizM’s wrong, but you were portraying the act of analysis as inherently suspicious.

The vague instructions to refer to N128 seem to be baseless attempts to focus suspicion onto me for actions in another game. Because I’m not sure how else to interpret your “logic”, since I do not genuinely believe you believe yourself. I mean, you’re basically saying that since I would act as a protown when I’m guilty, therefore if I act protown I’m suspicious. Likewise the reference to Hospital mafia, which I still don’t see any point to have mentioned.

And as for that random FoS in my first post, it was intended as 98% humor, but with the realization that if you were guilty, you might overreact. And I don’t see how you’d be reacting the way you did if you were innocent.

You’re normally a much better player than this, and I think the best explanation for the lapse is guilt.

Vote: Thok

.

[EmpTyger]

Thok:

<snip>If you didn't want me to jump on you for a random FOS, perhaps you should have included a smiley or a [/sarcasm] comment? It seemed extremely weird, especially coming in a post where you specifically tried to kill off all discussion of suspicions, except for a no lynch strategy.

Oh, I was quite interested in whether you would jump on me or not. I believe you saw an excuse to begin focusing suspicion onto me and ran with it.
Let me put this another way. Let’s say I “random vote: Thok”ed. Would that have excused your “jumping on me”? Moreover, you were in Mafia 128. You immediately recognized my reference. And you’ve been in enough other games with me to be aware of my style. Yet nevertheless you made [21]- and I cannot see any way you would make that post as an innocent.

<snip>Finally, I've said this before, but I'm not that useful of a day 1 player, especially protown. I need information to catch people, and right now there isn't that much to go on.

I played with you in the Poker mini. I *know* you are more than capable of analyzing and exploring unusual mechanics and setups on Day 1.


Mr. Flay:

<snip>Thok and ET certainly don't seem to be on the same side, but I'm not sure where to go with that right now<snip>

This statement jumped out at me. If, as you are implying, you’re not yet sure of either of our alignments, then why do you think that about our relative alignment? That is, if you aren’t sure which of us might be innocent or guilty, why would you think one of us had to be, instead of, say, us both being innocent? (Not that *I* think this is true, but *I* can make this conclusion because *I* know my own alignment and *I* feel confident about Thok, neither of which is seem to be true for *you*.)


inHim:
I’m not really sure what to make of your “not wanting to break the game” but having seen innocents in other games speak similarly, I’m going to draw any conclusion automatically about your alignment. Are there any other games in which you’ve expressed similar sentiments?


Astronaut:

Tell me again: Why did we move away from the no lynch plan?

The presumption was that the town had better opportunities of development at night because of our superior numbers. However, there is a possibility that antitowns get access to roleblockers, which, potentially canceling out an entire townsperson’s development regardless of the time spend on development. Thus, as with traditional setups when night is unequivocally advantageous to mafia, no-lynch is an incorrect play.
“because it was a stupid plan.”, while an oversimplification, isn’t entirely inaccurate.


Puzzle:
Prods are all well and good, but as a matter of personal preference, I’d rather we also call out specific people on lurking rather than merely relying on the mod. I’d have to reread the thread to figure out who that would be besides MoS...

[EmpTyger]

cc, d_rouge, Iammars, MoS, mlaker, roland, and swinkee desperately need to stop lurking. I also wouldn’t mind hearing more from Bamboo and dybeck.


Thok:
I’m not about to disagree with your call against lurking, but there is something intriguing about [117] which I’d rather not point out just yet...


Astronaut:

<snip>We don't know that the barbarians can build roleblockers, and he wouldn't be able to cancel more than that specific night's development.<snip>

That’s what I had initially assumed as well. However, roleblocker units have *2* abilities; the unit-targeting ability would nullify the town’s development. And while we don’t know what barbarians can do, we don’t know what they can’t. And I don’t see anyway to figure this out without antitowns generously spilling their own abilities.


Flay:

<snip>You don't feel that I know my own alignment? I'm not sure of you and Thok being scum or town, all I'm saying is that you don't appear to be on the same side. That means one of four things in my world.<snip>

Erm, no- I’m quite willing to concede that you are probably well aware of your own alignment. But I was wondering how you seemed to have narrowed to options 1 or 2 [or the side case of 4]. That is, if you aren’t confident of either Thok or my alignments (unlike, for example, myself), on what basis are you suggesting that only one of us are innocent?

As for my “quick abandonment”, see above. I agree with your suspicions about dybeck, but I am much more suspicious of Thok.

<snip>Did we ever decide how to proceed tonight? Every civ for themself?

I haven’t had a chance to recalculate the math, but it seems like coordination would be potentially bad long-term but good short-term. Right now I’m leaning towards "every civ for themself" but I’m not sure enough to fully endorse that just yet.


Puzzle:

Correction to my question : who cannot build units yet ?

Could you please clarify what you were asking here?

[EmpTyger]

I would much rather prefer to lynch Thok than swinkee. Which is not to say that swinkee hasn’t been suspicious, but I’ve been badly burned before by going after a lurker instead of sticking with a deduction I am confident in- and I am confident in my conclusion about Thok. In any case, I am not yet ready to place a vote upon swinkee. Especially since I don’t think he’s even second most suspicious.

Also, before we hit lynch or deadline, we *must* decide if anything coordinated will be done tonight.


d_rouge:

<snip>As for a coordination of night actions, I still haven't made up my mind, but for the moment I don't see a reason why everybody shouldn't just build cops.<snip>

It might be; but antitown roleblockers make the math a lot more messy and I haven’t had the time to work it out. Although I am finding it hard to find a weakness in massing cops that another plan won’t also be subject to, and successful investigation seems to help much more than any other successful action would.


swinkee:
Just because I’m not voting you doesn’t mean that I don’t think you’re suspicious. I suggest you consider claiming, especially if you still “have nothing to say”; if you wait much longer the deadline will be making things moot.


Thok:

Any reason for choosing swinkee rather than the other lurkers, inhim? I had already voted him and he did make a post, even if it was short and contentless. While I'd like to see swinkee post more, your choice bothers me.

So a lone prod from should be incentive enough to prod out a lurker?

The fact that you’re defending swinkee is almost ipso facto a point in his favor. I feel that you’re playing like you don’t expect to survive until the end of the game; and, being expecting to be lynched soon, are desperately trying to muddle a postmortem. Although your post is cleverly ambiguous enough to interpret this for either swinkee or inHim.


inHim:
You make an interesting point in [139].


HezL:

<snip>FOS Hez

scared when i called roland out?<snip>

Any reason why you ignored this?


Flay:
I don’t think that FoS was necessary- clearly if swinkee is guilty, those players are going to be suspected, and being suspicious of swinkee’s lurking does not seem to be more suspicious than swinkee’s lurking in itself is. Was there something more to your selection of d_rouge?
And this doesn’t seem like the time to admit to being pro-stalling, as it were...


roland:
Have you even read the thread? [148] makes zero sense.

personally i dont like the way roland is playing at all. every game im in hes lurking and posting the bare min just to keep out of the town's eyes.

I dont want that here and it looks like he playing that way agian.

Inhim has 2 votes.... one of them is a random from roland....

i thought that we are past the random stage...
if he didnt want to break the game he should have voted for one of the people sugesting it. then we are leaving the no lynch phase and to more suspiscious people and roland has kept his random vote. not voteing or not changing your vote is the easiest way to keep people happy. your not going to make people mad by voting for them

If we are going to get rid of lurkers then lets get rid of roland... hes infavor of playing the hard way. and hes not being bold in speaking his mind (atleast is who he thinks is scum). i can see in other games if you have a power role you would try to not attract attention to yourself, but in this game we are all equally powerful.

In themes i think there is a different way to play the game. like in wild west we use the duels to our advantage. or in this game we no lynch a round to get our investigations and powers up.

vote roland for lurking and trying to hinder the town from getting investigations. remember a no lynch is helping the town, so people not voting or refuse to play the game that way has a good chance of being scum.

Pay attention, please. I've given my opinion on the breaking matter, and that seems to be the only thing that you guys are discussing. I vote for who I think is scum, and I don't think that wanting to break the game necessitates scum, which is why I haven't voted for one of the pro-breakers. However, if it makes you feel better,

Unvote

. When you guys actually feel like playing the game instead of arguing whether to break it or not, I'll start posting. Until then, I really don't feel compelled to do so. 8)

What are you talking about? There is other discussion besides breaking. We are and have been “playing” (as your define it) by discussing who we think are scum. You’ve completely ignored the other accusations rajrhcpfreak made against you, which are quite legitimate: you’ve lurked and you are implying that optimal play shouldn’t be sought. And you are implying it is *our* responsibility to compel *you* to post? If you did want the game to be played “a certain way”, why would you lurk- especially under a deadline- rather than either advocate an alternate strategy, or at least participate? And how has the recent discussion not been the very action you’ve been waiting for?
Pay attention, indeed.


MoS:
Why oh why must you lurk, especially with a deadline? I’m just looking over the posts that you’ve been making in quite a number of other threads this past week, which include signing up for 3 mishmash games and a theme game, and which don’t include using lurking as an excuse for not contributing in any other game. I’m inclined to think N128 the exception that proves the rule.

[EmpTyger]

cc, d_rouge, Iammars, MoS, mlaker, roland, and swinkee desperately need to stop lurking. I also wouldn’t mind hearing more from Bamboo and dybeck.<snip>

I stated this prior to the deadline’s imposition. Since then, d_rouge and dybeck have contributed adequately, and roland and MoS hve contributed inadequately. That leaves nothing from

Bamboo, cc, Iammars, mlaker, and swinkee

(the last despite despite amassing numerous lurkervotes). Bamboo and Iammars have been posting extensively in other threads; mlaker and swinkee have posted less often but have still been active; cc hasn’t posted at all.

As for tonight, despite Thok’s vote of confidence in my judgment, I am declining to nominate any alterations to the nightchoice list- what we have seems to be sufficient.


Thok:

<snip>Also, Puzzle, can I suggest that you slightly alter the order of cop investigations to split up some of the people currently on swinkee's bandwagon? For example, does anybody like the idea of me investigating inhim tonight? I know I don't.

<snip>Lynching MOS would be like lynching IS or BJ day 1, and it's incredibly stupid in a game where we can get 20 or more cop investigations a day.

You’re overlooking the simplest solution to both these problems.


MoS:
You don’t have time to contribute- but yet you posted a defense awfully quickly after I accused you. Congratulations- you’ve almost convinced me that you’re a better lynch than Thok for today.


VisM:

I would much rather prefer to lynch Thok than swinkee.

Me too, but killing off a lurker is better than nothing, and deadline+people not actieve=bandwagon to avoid a nolynch, at least thats what I learned in math class.
We can still come back to Thok tomorrow, when we possibly have an investigation on him.

I would much rather lynch Thok and have swinkee investigated than the other way around.


Flay:

Also, I'm not necessarily suspicious of ALL parties on the bandwagon; d_rouge (and some others) had particularly spurious explanations of why they jumped on the wagon, and his comment about it being fun was the tipping point, for me.

Could you elaborate on who the “some others” are?

As for being pro-stalling, I felt that, all things being equal, it is better to indiscriminately blanket target lurkers rather than prodders. This might not be applicable in this situation, however, so in my initial assessment I might have been rushing...


inHim:

Puzzle - you've made that list under the assumption that everyone built a cop unit, correct? What about those that chose another unit to build, or those that advanced? Things to consider, these are.

There’s not really anything that can be done about it without people coming forward with their Night 1 nightactions, which is obviously a bad idea. This at least will prevent overlapping investigations. It’s not as good as the optimal calculations gave earlier, but I’m not sure we have time to wait for everyone to get an investigative ability.


Puzzle:

Well, they can simply build cops tonight without saying anything yet. Then, tomorrow, they can just say they were just building, which means unable to give a result, and the problem will have disappeared for the following night for which everyone will have cops.<snip>

Just wanted to point out that it’s not quite as simple as this, though the specifics can be structured tomorrow.

[EmpTyger]

Just a warning- I have numerous midterms this week, so I will be posting less frequently than I had been prior. I do not expect to be needed to be replaced, however.


VisM:

It is the same chance for catching scum, regardless if we follow a plan, or not, BUT if we follow a plan, the mafia will know who will investigate them. It might be better to go without a plan after all. Toughts on this?

Flay essentially covered it, I think, but basically, double investigations aren’t insignificant, especially over multiple days. The math is correct in that blind vs. coordinated doesn’t increase the chance of success, but that’s not the benefit for coordination. You do have the downside correct, however, which does still give me pause.


HezL:
I agree with d_rouge: it is much easier to prod lurkers without a deadline than with one...


d_rouge:
... but as you’ve yourself admitted, your unvote doesn’t seem to make any sense. Could you make specific what you intended to be done next?

[EmpTyger]

<snip>Not to say that you are f*cking up, but I don't think you're using the correct formula here. If we use ordered investigations, *and* we are defining "Success" as "investigation which results in finding a scum", then in ordered investigations I occurrances are completely irrelevant! Only G number of investigations *can* result in finding scum, so the formula collapses to 1-(1-s^G).<snip>

Ugh. Yeah, you're completely right. Very elegant way of setting up the problem, incidentally.

That is why I'm showing different numbers for the two, which I should have spelled out explicitly above. Unfortunately, it also makes the correction factor for one of those G investigators dying MUCH larger, which is why I'm not sure it ends up making it as big an advantage as I originally thought.<snip>

Less the ancillary benefits of innocent results, but otherwise yes. Although I doubt that those make of for potential antitown interference.

Support: Random Action

. I think we're better off not giving our scum concrete targets to hit (those investigating them, or those they wish us to THINK are investigating them), and it leads to a possibility of discovering any dethy variants faster.<snip>

I'm inclined to agree, but I want first want to check the math on where the breakeven point is on innocent investigations are, which I don't have the time to do right now.

[EmpTyger]

Not that more evidence is needed, but Thok is the only one who has rushed to attack Puzzle or Astronaut without any elaboration from Vesuvan. Haven’t had time to really do more analysis, still been very busy.


Vesuvan:

<snip>An extended pattern of behavior between pages 2 and 5.

If you want me to go into more detail, hold in mind that you're asking for a 4000-word post. It'll take time for me to write it up and time for you to read it, but at least I won't get BabyJesus voting me for doing so.

Um, if you expect your accusations to be believed, you’re going to need to say something a lot more specific than that. It doesn’t have to be 4000, but it’ll need to be more than those 10 words.

<and not getting the BabyJesus reference>

[EmpTyger]

Vesuvan:
Context should clear the alleged contradiction between my asking for lurkers and thinking discussion of suspicion bad:

The only reason I see to discourage lurking today is to ensure that everyone is on the same page about what we are doing. And I think the simplest way to do that is to wait for those who haven’t been participating as much to cast no-lynch votes.

But let me repeat that there is *no* point in discussing suspicions today. Write them down or type them up and save them for another day. The only thing to be discussed today is the optimal plan for tonight. (if not the next few nights)<snip>

As for the accusation of “directing the town”: I never meta setup I didn’t like?

You’ve outlined Puzzle’s suspicious behavior quite nicely, and I don’t disagree. But I am convinced Thok is a better lynch. Some of his posts make absolutely no sense if he were protown, yet fit perfectly as outted mafia.

If I might ask, what were your 2 misread points about Astronaut?


Astronaut:

<snip>EmpTyger seemed concerned that a roleblocker would cancel all development made by a civilization, that's impossible unless I've misinterpreted how roleblockers work in this game.<snip>

…? Really, this shouldn’t have had to be made more explicit.

-Some units have a Bombard value - these can be used as roleblockers. The player can choose to have the Bombard-capable unit target the player's cities or units. Should they target the cities, then that player's unit production or era-advancement for the night will be nullified.

Should they target the units, then all that player's units will be unable to perform any actions.

Puzzle:

Oh, a Vesuvan post !
I see you took a lot of time and efforts to bring this up, so I will respect this in taking great care for my answer to match it.

Or maybe not.

Um, if you expect your defense to be believed, you’re going to need to say something a lot more specific than that…

[EmpTyger]

Still rather busy, which makes me concerned by those lurking. I don’t have time to count through the thread/board, but considering how much I contributed with a ridiculously busy week, I’m leery of those doing even less.


Puzzle:
A few things not already mentioned:

1. The question about who cannot build units : it is made clear in post #3 that all townies can build units. Had anyone come out saying the contrary, he would have been scum paying little attention.

How could this question harm the town ?

<snip>

The point is not that your question is harmful. It’s that it’s a question that a genuine townsperson doesn’t really seem to have much point in asking. I might have been more inclined to buy the explanation of it being a trap if it weren’t for the fact that it was a correction of a question in [13]. Especially with my setting a trap of my own in my first post; you’re behavior just doesn’t seem to fit.

2. Main game / extension mass claim :
What is the importance of giving this info to the mafia ? What would they do with it ? If we are all from the main game, they are stuffed, so they have to claim extensions anyway. Having people claim main game would help clearing them partially at least, for

0 cost as the Mafia's play is not influenced / improved by revealing this

.<snip>

UM!? How do you know that main game only would imply this? Because that’s only true if there are exactly 16 townspeople- and your answer seems to imply that you are *certain* that this is true. This alone makes me want to vote you, since the best explanation for your behavior would seem to be that you are in a 4 person mafia group.

As for answering your actual response: if we do not massclaim today, then giving this information would help the mafia better coordinate false claims tonight.

5. Suggesting setting up a defined order (originally proposed by VisMaior in post 74) was leaped on quite quickly by Puzzle, and he carries it throughout. However, after being so strongly in support of this, he points out how easily this strategy can fail in post 88, yet still supports the idea completely!
And what is the alternative ?

Why do you omit to mention the other options and the reasons why I reject them ?

The strategy has weaknesses but it remains the best available, in my humble opinion.

What alternative do you suggest and why ?

8. My reason for wanting to lynch Swinkee is available now : I was certain he was scum in 8-bit (on MTGS) and have been outraged that the town refused obstinatedly to lynch him. Simple reprisal (

*scribbles Vesuvan's name on a piece of paper*

). <snip>

Frankly, this sounds like a preplanned alibi in case Swinkee was lynched as an innocent. Moreover, it reminds me of Thok’s accusing me by appealing to N128.


Vesuvan:
The problem I have with relying on “tells” is that, as a matter of principle, they can be the result of a misplaying innocent as much as a discovered guilty. (Although admittedly the convergence of multiple tells and the relative strength would be an indication otherwise.) But when I have an alternative method bearing a result- behavior which would not be done by an innocent- I see no reason to follow the latter course short-term. Which is not to imply that I am not strongly tempted to switch to Puzzle.

And honestly, I’m a little curious as to why you’re dismissive of my allegations against Thok. I’d also still like a response to my last question in [249]...


VisMaior:
Your support of Puzzle in [261] seems to parallel [7], and something about it just jumps out at me. Nothing which would be suspicious yet, but I could easily see you partnered with Puzzle were he to be mafia.


rajrhcpfreak:
Doctors are inefficient. Think of it this way: with everything else equal (ie: chance of protection is the same as of investigation), the doctor has to correctly pick the mafia target, but a cop only has to pick one of the mafia members. Since it’s quite unlikely that the mafia has more kills/night than members, the latter is easier than the former. The only advantage I could see to doctors is to make the announcing of innocent investigation results more secure. But I think additional investigative units would achieve a better result, though I haven’t had time to do the math yet.

Arguably roleblockers might be useful for the town, to counter any roleblockers that might be used against us. But (a) we have no definite proof yet that antitowns have access to roleblockers (though I personally would think it likely) and (b) there’s more of risk, since targeting a townsperson is counterproductive.

Vigilantes, for the record, seem to be equivalent theoretically to doctors- they buy the town time- but more riskier (if incorrect, a townsperson is lost) in exchange for the better chance of hitting the target (need to hit mafia instead of hitting target of mafia).

In any event, unique units void the “everything being equal” assumption.

[EmpTyger]

Puzzle:
I’ve been burned before by doing this, but you’ve convinced me that you’re more suspicious than Thok. Congratulations- this was no easy feat.

Unvote: Thok

. Start by not *completely* ignoring my [278]. (which incidentally accidentally contained point 5 requoted). I'm not ready to replace my vote just yet, however...


Vesuvan:
I understand that the points you initially thought indicated Astronaut was guilty are invalid. Nevertheless, I still would wish to know them specifically.

As for Thok, aside from the responses to [117], these are restatements of what I’ve already said.

<snip>You were strongly against no-lynching without any analysis (with what Puzzle called “blind opposition”) when I was advocating it was in the town’s best interest. But when VizM showed it wasn’t, you continued to defend that idea.

You accused me of “flooding with numbers” when you defended VizM’s numbers, again without any analysis, in [67]. Yet not only were my revised numbers correct and VizM’s wrong, but you were portraying the act of analysis as inherently suspicious.

Thok’s only defense was “laziness” in [102], which doesn’t explain his behavior at all- especially the timing of his switch in advocacy.

The vague instructions to refer to N128 seem to be baseless attempts to focus suspicion onto me for actions in another game. Because I’m not sure how else to interpret your “logic”, since I do not genuinely believe you believe yourself. I mean, you’re basically saying that since I would act as a protown when I’m guilty, therefore if I act protown I’m suspicious. Likewise the reference to Hospital mafia, which I still don’t see any point to have mentioned.<snip>

The reference to N128 has not been clarified, although he has elaborated about the Hospital mafia.

And as for that random FoS in my first post, it was intended as 98% humor, but with the realization that if you were guilty, you might overreact. And I don’t see how you’d be reacting the way you did if you were innocent.<snip>

and

<snip>If you didn't want me to jump on you for a random FOS, perhaps you should have included a smiley or a [/sarcasm] comment? It seemed extremely weird, especially coming in a post where you specifically tried to kill off all discussion of suspicions, except for a no lynch strategy.

Oh, I was quite interested in whether you would jump on me or not. I believe you saw an excuse to begin focusing suspicion onto me and ran with it.
Let me put this another way. Let’s say I “random vote: Thok”ed. Would that have excused your “jumping on me”? Moreover, you were in Mafia 128. You immediately recognized my reference. And you’ve been in enough other games with me to be aware of my style. Yet nevertheless you made [21]- and I cannot see any way you would make that post as an innocent.

If you will, a convergence that does not match a player’s playstyle. I specifically chose Thok to random FOS because of our prior games (especially N128). I realized that there were a number of ways he might have reacted to it; most would be ambiguous as to his alignment, but a few responses would make sense only if he were innocent.

<snip>Finally, I've said this before, but I'm not that useful of a day 1 player, especially protown. I need information to catch people, and right now there isn't that much to go on.

I played with you in the Poker mini. I *know* you are more than capable of analyzing and exploring unusual mechanics and setups on Day 1.

A lie. His rebuttal, which I hadn’t yet replied to, was

<snip>I'll point out that I was scum there, which means I had a decent amount of information to start the game, more so than I do now.<snip>

Which is at best misleading and at worst an outright lie. In fact, one of the postgame critiques I made was that the mafia did *not* have the advantage of information it traditionally has [M188.280].
And one doesn’t need to go beyond this thread to find him behaving thusly in this game:

EmpTyger: What about wonders? What about barbarians developing stuff (they almost certainly will have a faster tech tree than us, or get better units than us at each stage). What about a possible time limit? I can imagine no-lynch + building units being disasterous if we're not careful.

I'm also metagaming a little-I was in Sinister Overlord's last game, which got broken fairly easily. I'm assuming that he's spent more time polishing up this game.

Finally, fundamentally all protown players are roughly the same as far as I can tell. Discussing suspicions only hurts when it reveals power roles, but as far as I can tell, everybody and nobody is a power role. (That is, everybody has powers, but nobody is that much more valuable than anybody).

No-lynch might be the right play for today, but I still think discussion is useful.

Keeping my vote on for now.

EmpTyger, my bandwagon has taken way too long to develop, so either I'm scum and my partners are trying to avoid voting me or our scum consists of some hard-core lurkers. Since I know I'm innocent (I haven't gotten any support from anybody), I'm going to spend some time looking for lurkers. Let's try

unvote, vote swinkee FOS MOS, coporate claw

, with possibly some others to be added to the lurker list.<snip>

As hinted in [128], something about this bothered me:
What conclusion could Thok be trying to draw? He himself is implicitly admitting that he’s acted suspicious enough to be voted, even though he otherwise is denying my accusations as baseless. In fact, he *unvotes* me, all but conceding that I’m correct to be suspecting him; in fact, in [161] he considers me one of the best candidates to edit an investigatory list! His line of reasoning makes no sense- if hypothetically my accusations were baseless, then wouldn’t that be the best explanation for why Thok wasn’t receiving votes? So if they’re correct, then, well, doesn’t that make Thok scum? So why make ?

unless it’s a disguised warning to his fellow mafia

. And read that way, the line “I’m scum and my partners...” jumps out. In fact, given that he in [136] attacked inhim for following this logic, it makes even less sense.
I didn’t mention anything at the time because I was wanting to see reactions.

Not that more evidence is needed, but Thok is the only one who has rushed to attack Puzzle or Astronaut without any elaboration from Vesuvan<snip>

This I admitted is circumstantial; an innocent might also have behaved this way. But compounded with the other evidence against him, my suspicions are only solidified.


HezL:

Unvote, Vote: Puzzle

Your logic is garbage. Simply put, you are ignoring unique units for a VERY bad reason. You are assuming far more than you should, in an attempt to make your logic seem valid.

Simply put, if you actually WERE town and HAD upgraded, you would know that you don't receive your results until the next night begins.

What?! We’ve had *1* night so far. How do you possibly know what will happen at the beginning of a following night???

d_rouge:

I guess scum are just waiting for an opportunity to jump on a discussion between two pro-town players and by that I mean that in my opinion some of the players that jumped on Puzzle's bandwagon following Vesuvan are scum.

Interestingly, this did not appear to be happening with my accusations of Thok. How are you interpreting this?

[EmpTyger]

As uncomfortable as I am with second-guessing my first inclination, I’m still not sure where to place my vote.

In terms of lurking, Bamboomancer, Iammars, roland, and swinkee have been absent, and dybeck, mlaker, and MoS have barely posted. Bamboo has been extremely active elsewhere on the site, but hasn’t posted in this thread since 10/17. Ditto Iammars, who hasn’t posted since 10/12! roland (not since 10/20) and swinkee (not since 10/23) have both been fairly active too despite not contributing here. There appears to be no reason why the others should be this absent either.


Vesuvan:

As is often the case in a mafia game, there are some things better left unsaid whether because they're irrelevant or because they involve giving away information that is better to be left obscure.

Sorry if that sounds evasive.<snip>

Allow me to be blunt: I was curious about whether there was actually any basis. However, I will respect your lead and drop this line of inquiry for now.

As for Thok, I just want to clarify a few points:

Yep, flipping between opposing no lynch and supporting it is suspicious, but not all that strong an indicator. People do change their minds. I'd consider this a fair reason to look more closely at someone, but not to lynch someone in the absence of a deadline or something more tangible.<snip>

That’s not my point. The point was that Thok was supporting lynch when others’ analysis indicated no-lynch was optimal, and no-lynch when others’ analysis indicated lynch was optimal; in doing so he gave no analysis of his own. So why was he advocating these then?

Actually, given that this was a contributing factor to your lynch in the last game I played with you in, that point raises my eyebrow toward you moreso than toward Thok.<snip>

Given that that’s a game-in-progress, I’d rather not comment on this.

<snip>Finally, I've said this before, but I'm not that useful of a day 1 player, especially protown. I need information to catch people, and right now there isn't that much to go on.

I played with you in the Poker mini. I *know* you are more than capable of analyzing and exploring unusual mechanics and setups on Day 1.

A lie.

Are you saying that you lied about him being able to analyze unusual setups as of day 1? Because I recall him being able to do so in a mini game I played with him in previously. Sure, we were both on the wrong track, but he was able to contribute to analysis of a rather unusual situation of 3 mason groups in a mini-game.<snip>

No. *Thok* stated that *he* was incapable of being useful Day 1. *I* was stating that this declaration was a lie. Which as you point out is refuted by your own experience, and [24], the “typical Thok post” I cited, also contradicts.

What doesn't make sense about it is his unvoting you and considering you a trustworthy townie. It doesn't make sense to the point that it doesn't make sense from a townie perspective or a scum perspective.<snip>

Actually, I do agree with this, which is why I considered the alternate explanation that he was trying to signal other mafia. [There’s another possibility I just did think of, which involves a game-in-progress, though this would reflect even worse on Thok.]

[EmpTyger]

Thok:

<snip> Also, EmpTyger, don't try to convince everybody to investigate me tonight; I don't mind 1-3 people investigating me tonight, but 7 or more investigations of me is a little redundant.<snip>

Adorable. Though for the record, if it were up to me to convince others, I wouldn’t have investigations wasted on you. I’ll let Vesuvan have fun with your two “tells”: trying to orchestrate nightactions and also putting words in my mouth.


Puzzle:
If you’re not going to response further to the points brought up (especially those of mine) you might as well claim; you’re easily one of the most suspicious players, and currently the one who would be easiest to lynch. If you are going to be claiming, however, I would ask that you wait until HezL clarifies [284]...


HezL:
...Which you should do very quickly.

[EmpTyger]

I am unable to counterclaim Puzzle.


Vesuvan:

<snip>Why do you want him to clarify something that confirms him as a townie?<snip>

If you can explain how that confirms HezL as a townie, I will answer that question.


Thok:
Apologies- don’t have time right now to reply right now- will do so this weekend.

[EmpTyger]

Aw. The Title fairy visited my pillow last night.

I’d really like everyone else to weigh in on Puzzle’s claim before we proceed. Someone else want to comb the thread for lurkers this time?

A warning- RL is going to [continue to] be bothersome for me this week.


Thok:
I’ll start by the obvious rebuttal to your metacomments:
You didn’t think so for anyone else. Especially Puzzle, who started calculations in [4], in the first non-mod post of the game, which you responded to as follows:

Wow, EmpTyger. I was going to random vote you based on probability (you've been scum in every game I'm in), but I figure I might as well actually go

vote EmpTyger

. The random FOS is a nice touch.

I suggest everybody read newbie 128.

Puzzle, I think it's worthwhile to upgrade a little once you have one or two useful units.<snip>

So not only do you not object to this behavior in Puzzle, but you actively contribute to that line of discussion.

Considering how vague you were about why you initially voted, this feels like you are trying to retroactively create a basis for your vote. And the basis doesn’t fit.

Incidentally, I disagree with your metacomments: if someone is working off an incorrect model, how else is the correct one going to be identified?

<snip>If you had random FOSed anybody else at the start, or simply random voted me, I would not have reacted so violently. Similarly, if you hadn't tried to discourage other discussion in that post (which can only help scum-we aren't in any danger of mislynching a valuable power role or revealling a valuable role to scum, given that everybody is roughly the same power).<snip>

You have it backwards. The reason I random FOSed at the start of the game was because I wanted to see the reaction; as the only other veteran of Newbie 128 present, you were my only choice.

My day 1 comment was a misstatement-I should have said that I'm not that useful of an "early" day 1 player-I'm more useful once something happens that gives me information. (At this point of the game, I actually have a decent amount of info). I did have a decent amount of info in the Holdem Mini-I knew that we had a failed kill the previous night and hence likely we had to worry about a doc (which was true but turned out to be not the reason for the failed kill), and that there was likely an SK on the loose, and that something was causing players to be roleblocked. Moreover being scum, I also knew the alignment of all of the other players (well, except for the SK, but that didn't really matter from my point of view). I still managed to partially misanalyze everything! In this game I don't have anywhere near the type of info at the beginning of this game, especially given that I'm protown in this game (of course, you can't make the last assumption).<snip>

Basically, you are trying to argue is that you play noticeably different at the beginning of Day 1 depending on whether you are scum or town. Which at the very least implies that you’re a bad mafia player. And, really, if you were aware of this tell, wouldn’t you try to correct this rather than quickly trot it out as an excuse? So the other alternative is that you are lying, which I think is more likely anyway since there would be counterexamples able to be found in this game in [21] and [24].

As for what you have and haven’t replied to- ask me when I’m not about to doze off... this has not been the most restful of weekends...


HezL:
You made a statement about what was going to happen tomorrow night. I don’t see how you could know that at this point. Moreover, it was in the middle of an ambiguous accusation against Puzzle. So I suppose I am asking you to either clarify the initial comment or clarify your reasoning for why you don’t need to.

[EmpTyger]

Since my comments are being discussed more than HezL’s (or Vesuvan’s) I’ll clarify before them. And maybe then they can tell me what I’m missing.

HezL implied that he knew what would be happening at the start of Night 2. I had two problems with this. Firstly, I see no way for a townsperson to know this. We’ve had *1* nighttime. How would he have knowledge of the way a following night begins? He might have made a reasonable guess about what should happen, but given the context of the originally statement (concluding Puzzle should know B if he had done A) he sounded much more certain than a mere guess.

Secondly, why did he even bring this up? I still see no connection to what was being discussed. In fact, the only point to the statement seems to be to have established HezL as a civilization, and thus innocent. Well. Let me be skeptical:

The presumption has been that a civilization is innocent; a barbarian guilty. I’m not willing to be certain it’s that cut-and-dried. (For one thing, again, if it is, then we may as well massclaim right now.) Another presumption was made by VisM and d8P that it would be out of flavor for barbarians to upgrade, so knowledge of upgrading implies innocence. Aside from the fact that it would strengthen considerably what already appears to be a strong town if barbarians could not improve, I would like to point out that the barbarians might have an alternate upgrading mechanism. (For which an existing yet as yet unexplained piece of evidence might corroborate.)

So I ask for clarification. And I think I am reasonable to do so.


HezL:

<snip>If you insist, I will be suspicious of you (but will give it anyway ... not that it should matter).

Well, I insisted and you’re voting for me, so I’ve lived up to my end of the bargain…


inHim:
Ironically, I was about to go back to that very post you quoted because of the HezL matter. But for the record, I was basing [47] off of traditional theory, coupled with the abilities known for the town. I don’t see how that conclusion would require additional knowledge. And what do you mean by “counting people”? Lurker prodding?


Vesuvan:
Oh come on. I dropped the matter before only because you said:

<snip>As is often the case in a mafia game, there are some things better left unsaid whether because they're irrelevant or because they involve giving away information that is better to be left obscure.<snip>

Now, clearly I didn’t think the matter irrelevant, so I dropped it because I thought you were implying that it would be giving away information. Now, however, you’re saying:

<snip>Since I've brought that point up before for a different reason (irrelevant rather than potentially harmful),<snip>

So you're claiming the reason was actually that it was irrelevant? Well, maybe in *your* judgment. *I* did not and do not believe so. But you wouldn’t say, with ridiculous levels of evasiveness. And now not only have you just said that you have no reason for not saying so, but you reveal yourself to have been at best deceptive about getting me to back off.


d8P:
2 with 1 in [339]. And I thought I had been clever...

[EmpTyger]

We have 2 claims outstanding (Puzzle’s and Thok’s) which not everyone has responded to yet. I would like to make the following proposal:

I propose that we go through and deny or admit to being from the basic Civ3 game. {Americans, Aztecs, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, English, French, Germans, Greeks, Indians, Iroquois, Japanese, Persians, Romans, Russians, Zulu} Also, if a player has not yet commented on Puzzle’s claim, they should do so at that time, and likewise counterclaim Thok if they can. Then that player names the next player to go, and so on. I am willing to go first. When this is done, assuming I am still under suspicion, I will make a full claim.

In the meantime, I’d kindly ask that I not be lynched. I’m currently at 8 votes, and that’s without Thok or Vesuvan.

If this proposal is deemed unsuitable, I’ll *immediately* claim. I’d rather defend myself directly (be it now or after my proposed run-through), but as I can’t really do that against most of my accusations, I’ll take what I can get.


HezL:
I don’t see *any* statement that you’ve made that indicates your town. Which is what I’ve said from the onset of this debate. So my offense is that I stated that something you say doesn’t make sense. I’m provided reasoning and evidence. You haven’t shown anything. So, I’m not really sure how else I can respond to your accusation. Because at the moment, there isn’t any evidence. The only thing I seem to be guilty of is skepticism, and you still haven’t shown any reason why I shouldn’t be skeptical.


Vesuvan:

Emp, HezL should not explain his comment. That falls under being "bad for the town".

My telling you that my findings on Astro were irrelevant was because when taken into context they were irrelevant. Discussing irrelevant points at length only serves to derail the town (unless of course, the town is sitting around doing nothing, which was not the case)

So, if a player makes a statement that seems off, they can avoid clarifying it when pressed by using the excuse it would be “bad for the town”? Fox guarding the henhouse?

As for HezL: I have already explained why I believe that his comment requires more explanation. *He* himself offered to explain. Your allegation is that I should have known X if I were town, for reason Y. But you won’t say what X or Y are! If they were this obvious, then, well, why doesn’t the rest of the town know about them?
In fact, after I asked about it in [286]: VisM agreed with me in [293]. Puzzle does in [294]. Mr. Flay seem to have also in [295], though it’s a little ambiguous. No one thought my question unusual until you- who also didn’t think the question unusual initially- FoS me in [312], touching this off.

Since then:
d8P says he see it also, though to be completely honest I think he’s playing along, but I don’t have a good handle on his style. In any case, he was willing to say what this alleged fact was in twilight. So temporarily assuming it to be correct, then everyone would know by tomorrow anyway, so how would any revelation be bad for the town? Unless you can’t reveal your logic because the alleged reasoning against me is spurious.

HezL, strongly supported by you, has refused to explain either the initial comment or the reasoning for why he must be so secretive. You claim that “it’s obvious”. I don’t think so, and

And as for you: I was not certain that the whole matter with Astronaut was irrelevant, which was why I was asking about it. But *you* decided it was irrelevant- and that clearly should not be your unilateral decision, in a matter which might indicate *you* suspicious! I wasn’t looking to discuss an irrelevant point, but rather I thought- and think- that they might have *significant* relevance! Fox/henhouse again.

(Lest I get speedlynched, the deal with that was that I thought that there was a very small possibility of some interaction between you and Astronaut. I figured that there was no harm in examining this possibility by seeing what the posts you misread were, and how reasonable your explanation was. Improbable? Perhaps. But worth checking up on, I felt.)


armlx:
No reason stated for you’re vote for me, seems like a simple bandwagon. Not sure how I can reply to it.


rajrhcpfreak:
No reason stated for you’re vote for me, seems like a simple bandwagon. Not sure how I can reply to it.


Mr. Flay:
No idea what the basis for the vote in [367] was. Not sure how I can reply to it.


inHim:
I have *no* idea of most of what you are alleging in [344]. I keep rereading it and it makes even less sense. You make 5 accusations:
1) “the Hez thing” [see above]
2) “counting people”- [again, no idea what this means]
3) making the statement that a 4:1 innocent:guilty ratio seems too high [which, um, isn’t it?]
4) “dropping early clues” [where have I done this?]
5) “seems to have information” [where have I done this?]

The “HezL thing”: okay, fine, judging by other reactions, this might be a reasonable basis, albeit vague. But the rest???


Astronaut/d8P/Puzzle:
No, I was not wondering whether we have innocent barbarians. I was wondering whether we have guilty civilizations.


Thok:
Kind of lost by the wayside, but I think I’m good for now regarding my points against you. Not that I’ve had a good night’s sleep, but you can address those suspicious. I do have some comments about your claim, but it’s silly to make them now.

[EmpTyger]

Would have liked to hear from those who weren't already suspecting me, but 3 nays is enough, I think.

Mao, Chinese.

*Now* can we do counterclaims?


Vesuvan:

<snip>EmpTyger, claim before digging for extra info. Especially info which would help you to fabricate a claim!

Oh come on again. I'd already denied being able to counterclaim Puzzle and I was willing to go first against Thok. How could any possible claim I might have made been affected?

[EmpTyger]

Thok:

<snip>Emptyger-however, such a process does help scum by giving them a feel for whether they'd be better off claiming a basic Civ or an expansion pack Civ.<snip>

Um, if you’re actually a townsperson and your claim is genuine, wouldn’t the mafia have already learned this? In fact, in what situation *other than your making up your claim* could this be true?

Also, Puzzle hinted at having some flavor to his roleclaim (and I'm certain that I, as well as most of the other Civ's have simiilar flavor). Do you want to say anything about that?

Checking with the mod about what he wants me to say about that...


Vesuvan:
Yes, I really do think I need you to explain that. Because- as I *just* restated- I said I’d be willing to go first. So I’d have been declaring main/expansion before anyone else. So… how again would that help me fabricate a claim?


Flay:
Different accusations have been mentioned; I wanted documented bandwagoners’ reasons for voting.

For what it’s worth, the context for that line about was part of some skeptical brainstorming based on what was my best guess for this “obvious” proof of innocence of HezL’s. I would much rather *not* have to guess at what HezL meant, but he and Vesuvan insist on stonewalling on clarification.

[EmpTyger]

Vesuvan:

<snip>So you claim expansion/main-game, then after knowing how many expansion pack and main-game civs there are, make your full claim. I'll agree that it won't help much, but it will help.<snip>

I would already have had to declare whether I am main or expansion before I would have learned what that count was. Yes, I would have knowledge of this count before naming my specific civilization (or, hypothetically, making one up), but, yet again, how would such a count be of any help in that regard?

[EmpTyger]

As for my claim: one bit of flavor is that I am particularly good at 2 types of tasks.



inHim:
Not only have you not clarified why you voted me earlier, but your new rationale doesn’t work either:

Happy with my vote. Scum would just love to know if they can fake from the expansion sets...

There are 4 possibilities: I am scum; Thok is scum; both of us are; neither of us are.

1) I am guilty; Thok is innocent.
Then (as I pointed out in [386] when Thok tried this logic) Thok’s claim was real, and so scum would already have known whether a claim could be faked from an expansion set. So my proposal would give nothing away.

2/3) I am innocent, and Thok is one or the other.
Tonight the mafia will get a chance to confer and determine whether and how many should fake being basic or expansion. My proposal would force them to do this uncoordinated. Plus there’s the chance of catching Thok in a lie.
Moreover, in these cases you obviously shouldn’t be happy with your vote on me.

4) Both Thok and I are guilty.
My plan might arguably gain knowledge for scum, but at the cost of sacrificing 2 scum, one of who would be seeming extremely innocent given the level of suspicion I directed at Thok. And possibly more than 2, since mafia would not have had a chance to coordinate before my proposal was done.
And logically this would imply that my guilt depended on Thok’s guilt, meaning his alignment should be tested first.

So, once more: Why are you voting for me?

[EmpTyger]

So far I see 1 legitimate reason out of all this nonsense for I am being voted, and that’s for my comment about guilty civilizations. (I am willing to concede that I deserve some suspicion for that, though I would argue that I am not currently most suspicious, nor that that offense is worthy of a lynch at this point.) However, I partially excuse Astronaut, Puzzle, d8P, and Flay for voting me. The rest {HezL, inHim, armlx, rajrhcpfreak}, have at this point either not stated a reason or not stated a legitimate one. Vesuvan and Thok for their past votes this game I also put on the latter list. For this reason I’d *really* like someone to unvote me, even unconvinced, so that day does not end prematurely if they think they have nothing to lose.

Now, to be productive:
Can anyone explain why we should not follow my proposal about counterclaiming and verifying basic/expansion? Or, alternately, why we should do anything other than that or lynch Thok?

Because those are the *only* two possibilities:

Either my proposal doesn’t hurt the town or Thok was lying.

(Note that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive)


d_rouge:

<snip>I cannot counterclaim any of the players that claimed, if that's useful to know. I think we should really think if it's worth claiming as a defense, since there's not really much that we can get from a claim now. A part from a counterclaim there's no way I can see to tell the difference between a false claim and a true one.
And I don't think that we should let go anyone that is not counterclaimed.<snip>

Which is one of the reasons why I really want to have everyone acknowledge the existing claims today. Especially since nighttime would allow mafia to coordinate a counterclaiming strategy.
And “not really much that we can get from a claim now” implies that you believe that I revealed all of the flavor Puzzle alluded to…


Thok:
Sorry, don’t understand [394], unless you’re simply confirming me but don’t want to say so more explicitly lest you accidentally convince others to unvote me.


VisM:

<snip>Given the raw power of an allcop town, scum might decide to take a gamble, even when sacrificing their own.

Yes, this is certainly a possibility, but see the end of my reply to inHim. In this case Thok is guiltier than I.


inHim:

<snip>And I don't know how much more I can explain my reasoning. I thought it was fairly clear.

No, it’s wasn’t, and still isn’t. You’ve listened 6 reasons for voting me. I’ll repeat them.

1) “the Hez thing”
2) “counting people”
3) making the statement that a 4:1 innocent:guilty ratio seems too high
4) “dropping early clues”
5) “seems to have information”
6) letting scum know about expansion sets.

I don’t know what 2 is or why it would make me guilty. (if you think so, say how!)
I don’t know why 3 would make me guilty. (if you think it does, say why!)
I haven’t done 4. (if you think I have, say where!)
I haven’t done 5. (if you think I have, say where!)
6 isn’t a reason to vote me. (see below)

“Fairly clear”???

And to explain why the four possibilities I set forth deserved more than sarcasm:
In Case 1 I wasn’t giving anything away. So there’s no reason to vote me. (But there is to vote Thok)
In Case 2 and 3 I’m innocent and therefore shouldn’t be voted.
In Case 4, Thok is just a good a lynch as I am.

In every case, if Thok does not deserve to be lynched, than neither do I. If you’re lynching based on this logic, he’s just as good if not better.

[EmpTyger]

I am at lynch - 1, and Thok has *nothing* to lose by lynching me. Someone unvote, at the very least so that the question of coordinated vs. uncoordinated nightactions is clarified.

[EmpTyger]

Actually here:

Unless this issue is resettled after this post, townspeople should conduct nightactions as they personally feel is best, and *not* based on any set instruction in the thread.

I would strongly advise against wasting an investigation on Thok, because he'll be dead regardless by the end of Day 2.

[obviously, this is void in the instance of my being lynched and found guilty]

[EmpTyger]

Huge kudos for Thesp for filling in like that. Glad the game got finished. Well down town.

I was expecting the seized gold to have something to do with barbarian improvement, instead of being so underpowered. Ironically the no-lynch plan would have worked better than even I thought it would.

Sorry, Thok, about Day 1. I guess playing in a game where both of us are innocent was too unusual. My bad also to HezL- I’m not entirely sure what I did wrong but honestly I don’t remember the details well enough to want to rehash it.