Mini 456: Ultimatum Mafia - Game Over!

[Yosarian2]

Hehehe...yeah, now that the conservatives have taken over, they'll probably cut NGR's budget.

[mneme]

Fonz: There were two players forced to challenge -- Albert and Sparks -- both scum. If the town had taken a "if you're forced to challenge, we'll lynch you", we'd have done better.

Having multiple scum groups still makes the town less likely to win -- we'd have had better odds with a single four person scum group. (and worse with a 6 person scum group, but hey. ) It also makes any given scumgroup less likely to win, but not as much as it hurts the town.

The normal course of mafia is that you've got several good bandwagons over the course of a day -- giving you a lot of info on who's allied or likely unalied with who. It's not accurate info (necessarily) but it's still pretty useful. With the challenge system, this tends to go away -- as as soon as things heat up -once-, it's all down to the wire between two separate players, and you only get info on how players feel about them, not anyone else.

Yosarian: was it? How would the game have been different had BM surivved the challenge isntead of VD? Would you have found him harder to manipulate? Would he have helped save me instead of kill me in absentia?

[mneme]

Also, re BM -- game honor is very important. If you don't do what you say you're going to do, you look scummy -- and punishing people who act disengeniously is one of the ways the town catches scum.

So if Stoofer and I hadn't pushed the BM lynch, it would have (and certainly -should- have) been worse than had we not done so.

Now, whether the "pact" as it was was optimal is another question -- it may have given reckless players and scum too much power in controlling lynches (frex, one wonders what would have happened had I challenged Fonz on the day I died, as I'd have likely done after my analsys if it hadn't been a contradition of my principles). But something like it was necessary.

[Yosarian2]

Well, that's true. As it turned out, it might not have made a huge difference. I mean, BM might have gone off and challanged Albert or me later, but that dosn't mean he would have won.

Still, I'm not really sure what the big advantage is to keeping a claimed scum around in a nightless game. There's no nightkills, so lynching him dosn't really hurt the town in any case; I mean, sure he might save the town in a lynch or lose situation, but he could just as easily doom the town in a 3 player 1 town 1 conservative 1 liberal endgame.

[The Fonz]

Fonz: There were two players forced to challenge -- Albert and Sparks -- both scum. If the town had taken a "if you're forced to challenge, we'll lynch you", we'd have done better.

Sparks wasn't forced to challenge. He challenged before the deadline because it was obvious the town wanted him to. If town operated a policy of lynching anyone forced to challenge, that would have led to people rushing to avoid being the least recent poster, rather thsn

Having multiple scum groups still makes the town less likely to win -- we'd have had better odds with a single four person scum group. (and worse with a 6 person scum group, but hey. ) It also makes any given scumgroup less likely to win, but not as much as it hurts the town.

Well, if you mean compared to a single four person scumgroup, of course it does. But a single four-player scumgroup, with no nightkills, that game would be unbalanced in the town's favour.

Would he have helped save me instead of kill me in absentia?

I think so, actually. It's at least possible. I really can't understand why VD voted Albert at all.

[Battle Mage]

lol i repeat, you are looking too much into honour and morals. There IS NO HONOUR when your actions cost the town the game. Do you really think your contribution to this game was one that you are proud of? Will you be boasting of your performance here for weeks to come? I think not.
true enough, a change of stance is often scummy. But I WASNT EVEN HERE when this agreement was made. I felt, rightfully it seems, it was flawed. If you care so much about enforcing rules, you should get a job in the police force, or a school. However, this is a game. You have to adapt. Discipline is often nice, but in Mafia Games, it isn't very reliable. In fact, enforcing such a strategy didnt just get innocent townies lynched, but after it had failed, it made the people who orchestrated it (you and Stoofer) look scummy, and thus got you lynched next.

this game is a shining example that we should stick to Mafia concepts, even in games where there are rule changes.

Also, re BM -- game honor is very important. If you don't do what you say you're going to do, you look scummy -- and punishing people who act disengeniously is one of the ways the town catches scum.

So if Stoofer and I hadn't pushed the BM lynch, it would have (and certainly -should- have) been worse than had we not done so.

Now, whether the "pact" as it was was optimal is another question -- it may have given reckless players and scum too much power in controlling lynches (frex, one wonders what would have happened had I challenged Fonz on the day I died, as I'd have likely done after my analsys if it hadn't been a contradition of my principles). But something like it was necessary.

[mneme]

There IS NO HONOUR when your actions cost the town the game.
Do you really think your contribution to this game was one that you are proud of?

Yes.
I pretty much singlehandedly smoked out the liberal mafia, and gave the town the best chance we had of winning.

That the town believed scum lies and lynched me in the midgame? The game's a team effort -- but Stoofer and I should have been cleared by that point.

But I WASNT EVEN HERE when this agreement was made

Irrelevant. The agreement was unilateral--that people should be forced to challenge according to the nominations and popular ideas or have the votes against them.

You called our bluff -- it wasn't one.

this game is a shining example that we should stick to Mafia concepts, even in games where there are rule changes.

Heh.

We seem to have different ideas on what "mafia concepts" are.

[Battle Mage]

lol bravo. you managed to take out 2 noobs early on. Then, once the 3rd one outted himself, YOU ALLOWED HIM TO SURVIVE. It would be reasonable to argue that it was because of you, that we didnt kill the entire Liberal Mafia.
I really cant fathom how you think you would have been cleared. seriously. lol

the agreement wasn't unilateral, if somebody didn't agree to it (or do i have the definition wrong?). Its amazing that you still seem to deny that this was a crap strategy. You must have realised that, when almost everyone agreed to something, it must have benefitted the scum in some way. Equally, you can't expect people to go along with something that makes no damn sense, just because someone else says to, when that someone could themselves be scum!!!

BM

There IS NO HONOUR when your actions cost the town the game.
Do you really think your contribution to this game was one that you are proud of?

Yes.
I pretty much singlehandedly smoked out the liberal mafia, and gave the town the best chance we had of winning.

That the town believed scum lies and lynched me in the midgame? The game's a team effort -- but Stoofer and I should have been cleared by that point.

But I WASNT EVEN HERE when this agreement was made

Irrelevant. The agreement was unilateral--that people should be forced to challenge according to the nominations and popular ideas or have the votes against them.

You called our bluff -- it wasn't one.

this game is a shining example that we should stick to Mafia concepts, even in games where there are rule changes.

Heh.

We seem to have different ideas on what "mafia concepts" are.

[Mr Stoofer]

Battle Mage, menme is absolutely correct in what he says.

You need to listen more to experienced players who are saying things only because they want to help.

[Battle Mage]

Battle Mage, menme is absolutely correct in what he says. You need to listen more to experienced players who are saying things only because they want to help.

its nice of you to offer your opinion Stoofer, but if its all the same, could you please explain your view?
Its human nature not to trust something that sounds completely stupid, even if somebody intelligent says it.
Oh and as a note, experienced people aren't always right. just 95% of the time. lol

feels good eh?

[Yosarian2]

BM, to be fair, while I don't think lynching you was the right move, it was also partly your fault due to play errors on your part as well. Specifically, if you really thought that the consensess was wrong and thought Van needed to be challanged, you probably should have floated the idea first. Said "Look, I really think Van could be conservative, and he's definatly a scum, and I think he needs to go now. I'll listen to what you have to say, but unless someone convinces me otherwise in the next day or so, I'll challange him myself." If you had done that, then even if people didn't agree with you, you would have had a better shot of surviving that challange, and if people disagred TOO violently you would have had a chance to back down instead. As it was, you were basically counting on the good will and trust of the town at the same time you had just done a move that seemed irrational and confusing to most of the town, and didn't really explain why you did it. If you had thought about it first, you probably could have predicted your move wasn't going to be very popular if you did it that way, and that it was likely to get you lynched. Whenver a townie gets lynched, it's usually both the fault of that townie and of the town in different degrees, and usually both sides can learn and improve their play from it.

[Guardian]

Hehehe...yeah, now that the conservatives have taken over, they'll probably cut NGR's budget.

:hate:

[Battle Mage]

i agree with your idea in theory, but in practice, had i said that, i'd inevitably either be challenged by somebody who thought VD was a bad play, or worse still, somebody else would jump in before me, and VD would be given another day of survival.
fyi, i do felt i explained the move as well as i could. I believe both The Fonz and you yourself suggested that VD could be Conservative scum (though as it happens, you were both scum yourselves) lol.
However, when it came to the crunch, people cared too much about morals and me going against the status quo, than killing the actual scum. I did realise that perhaps my challenge would be met with some disagreement, and that i would probably be met with suspicion the next day, but i genuinely thought you guys would have had more sense than to kill me on that day.

BM, to be fair, while I don't think lynching you was the right move, it was also partly your fault due to play errors on your part as well. Specifically, if you really thought that the consensess was wrong and thought Van needed to be challanged, you probably should have floated the idea first. Said "Look, I really think Van could be conservative, and he's definatly a scum, and I think he needs to go now. I'll listen to what you have to say, but unless someone convinces me otherwise in the next day or so, I'll challange him myself." If you had done that, then even if people didn't agree with you, you would have had a better shot of surviving that challange, and if people disagred TOO violently you would have had a chance to back down instead. As it was, you were basically counting on the good will and trust of the town at the same time you had just done a move that seemed irrational and confusing to most of the town, and didn't really explain why you did it. If you had thought about it first, you probably could have predicted your move wasn't going to be very popular if you did it that way, and that it was likely to get you lynched. Whenver a townie gets lynched, it's usually both the fault of that townie and of the town in different degrees, and usually both sides can learn and improve their play from it.

[VanDamien]

The ultimate point here is, howwever, assuming subsequent lynches had occured as they did - your lynch over mine, BM, mad no difference in the way the game ended.

Beyond that - going against the status quo is exactly what outed both me and sparks.

[Stewie]

i agree with your idea in theory, but in practice, had i said that, i'd inevitably either be challenged by somebody who thought VD was a bad play, or worse still, somebody else would jump in before me, and VD would be given another day of survival.

Giving VD extra days of survival is what we wanted. The town agreed, unanimously, that letting him live was a good play until we got two conservative scum. We knew he was scum, and eventually he was going to die. But this game was a game of numbers. The conservative scum needed to have a number equal to the rest of the town, including liberal scum. By keeping him alive, we basically had one more lynch. We knew he was scum, but we were using him for numbers... it was the wrong play to lynch scum, at least that one scum. It's not about morals or you going against the status quo, it was about you making a play which benefited noone but the conservative scum. When you play in a way which benefits the conservative scum, it implies that you are conservative scum playing in a way that benefits you.

[mneme]

When you play in a way which benefits the conservative scum, it implies that you are conservative scum playing in a way that benefits you.

QFT

[Battle Mage]

The ultimate point here is, howwever, assuming subsequent lynches had occured as they did - your lynch over mine, BM, mad no difference in the way the game ended.

Beyond that - going against the status quo is exactly what outed both me and sparks.

hmm, not necessarily. As a townie who actually benefitted by killing the Conservatives, there is the possibility that i might have made different choices. You are basically saying that an SK is the same as a Vig.

@Stewie-again, you miss the possibility that VD

was

Conservative-scum, in which case the town would have been even more screwed.

[The Fonz]

I do actually think that saving BM would have been in the town's interest. Yet, that's in retrospect, knowing that he was town. I think there was plenty of reason for pro-town players to think that Battle Mage was scum. It wasn't coincidence that ALL the pro-towners voted to kill BM.

[Mr Stoofer]

It wasn't coincidence that ALL the pro-towners voted to kill BM.

QFT x 1,000,000

Indeed, it was so obvious that pro-towners would vote to kill BM that I (correctly) figured out that Yosarian2 was scum because he voted to save BM.

[Battle Mage]

It wasn't coincidence that ALL the pro-towners voted to kill BM.

QFT x 1,000,000

Indeed, it was so obvious that pro-towners would vote to kill BM that I (correctly) figured out that Yosarian2 was scum because he voted to save BM.

was that sarcasm? i'm still waiting on your explanation Stoofy.
Let me just clarify one thing though in response to Fonz's comment:
didn't the town LOSE the game?

[The Fonz]

Yes. In part because one of its players did something extremely rash, anti-town, and scummy-looking, which handed the scum a mislynch without even having to try.

Just for the record though Stoof- I'd still have found your actions in relation to BM scummy if I were town. It was fortunate that I was not.

[Mr Stoofer]

Battle Mage, think about this.

All the pro-town players voted to kill you. Every single one. So either:

1. Every single one of the pro-town players was being illogical, and you are the only one playing the game logically,
   or
   
2. You played so badly that every pro-town player wanted you dead.

Which do you think it was?

[Battle Mage]

Battle Mage, think about this.

All the pro-town players voted to kill you. Every single one. So either:

1. Every single one of the pro-town players was being illogical, and you are the only one playing the game logically,
   or
   
2. You played so badly that every pro-town player wanted you dead.

Which do you think it was?

I'd say it was a combination of both. I assume you will try and blame the entire town defeat on me. gg.

[The Fonz]

It's far too strong to blame the entire loss on you, BM, since three mislynches occurred after your death. But I don't think you've got anyone else to blame for your own lynch.

It's incredibly frustrating the way that you attack anyone who tries to give you advice.

[Mr Stoofer]

It's far too strong to blame the entire loss on you, BM, since three mislynches occurred after your death. But I don't think you've got anyone else to blame for your own lynch.

√

It's incredibly frustrating the way that you attack anyone who tries to give you advice.

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√