Mini 520 - Triumvirate Mafia - ABANDONED

[somestrangeflea]

I'm so sorry about this guys. I should be read up and have a post soon. Had to get teeth pulled, which isn't a pleasant experience...

I should be read up and have a post by tomorrow. Promise!

[Spider Jerusalem]

Looks like I picked an active time to go out of town for the weekend, I'll first clear up Phate's question about my name. It's a comic book character as pictured in my avatar, main character of Transmetropolitan if you're really interested.
Now on to real business.

@Phate 103: you snap back at me about saying you shouldn't use witty devices yet in the same breath say I agree to much. Seems like all I didn't just blandly agree with you after all. I explained what i didn't like about your post.

@miztef 104: In nothing that you quoted am I just blandly agreeing with anyone, I at least state why I agree and in fact analyzed and went after MoS more than anyone else I beleive. I tend to feel that if I want to keep someone talking on a productive discussion I have to agree with them when they make a solid point and retort with a clarification on my argument, or a counterpoint, as the situation demands. IMHO thats the best way to keep a discussion productive in the long term and avoid degenerating into a shouting match. I will freely admit however to being vote shy, especially with the complicated roles we have. I generally start by laying out my suspicion and seeing how people respond to it, the information I gain there will lead to my vote decision. My feeling is that too many votes based on a shaky case can cause actions that actually confuse the town rather than help it, I prefer to discuss for a while before that kind of pressure is exerted.

FlyingHawk, SJ, not to call the kettle black, but you guys are new here. And thus it might stand to reason that you'll make mistakes, especially in the area of keeping things hidden if you have them to hide. And it strikes me as interesting that while you've been quiet all game, you both fairly well jump to defend MoS. This might (indeed, probably) be nothing, but I think it's worth mentioning.

*stores away the possibility that there might be a link between flyinghawk, MoS, and SJ*

Ummm... Here I think you're just confused I've not said word one to defend Mastermind of Sin, in fact I actually went more in depth into why I thought his behavior seemed a little scummy than anyone else has. Please point me to any place where I defended him.

That aside, though, I see your point. Ok, let's drop the newbie angle, then - I thought it lent evidence to my point, but obviously not. The core of what I thought was interesting was that two relatively quiet players suddenly popped back up to defend MoS. Even if that turns out to be nothing, I thought it was worth noting.

Here you go again, I don't like to discourage casting out the net of suspicion even if it lands on me but you have to at least get your facts straight. I have never defended Mastermind of Sin. Consistently misrepresenting something like that seems to be a much bigger scum tell than anything.

In conclusion:
@phate: I'd like to hear an explanation on how you came to the conclusion that I have been defending MoS.

@miztef: I don't see how my arguments are any weaker than anyone else's and i think my argument against MoS was a fairly good one even if I choose a poor time to use the colloquial form of dropped and confused him a bit (that is using "dropped a topic" to mean presented a topic, sorry MoS that was poor form on my part to use that as a clarification).

[skitzer]

@faerielord: I've just been very observant. Once this game becomes more involving, I'll probably post more frequently. I haven't really said anything of decent material yet, to yield the truth.

[someone2]

Going to do a full reread, I just completely lost the point of the discussion. Finally, I don't really like playing in two games at the time . When I finish posting in my other game, I'm too lazy or I don't have the time to post in this one.

[Phate]

Spider Jerusalem... hm, the name makes a bit more sense now.

Ummm... Here I think you're just confused I've not said word one to defend Mastermind of Sin, in fact I actually went more in depth into why I thought his behavior seemed a little scummy than anyone else has. Please point me to any place where I defended him.

You know, when I read this post, I was incredulous. But I went back and read through the last few pages, and you're completely right. I don't know how I thought you did. I apologise, and am eating crow.

However, I stand by my original statement - I find you too agreeable. Your points of dissent are always surrounded by things like "I agree with most of this", "I definitely didn't mean to say", and "I could see how I was a little unclear." Perhaps this is just your playstyle, but I don't trust diplomats.

[Mastermind of Sin]

People who look scummy to me

MoS-Overexplains a lot. Maybe just overeager, like I said before
SJ-someone said that he was too agreeable. I agree (heh heh, too ironic)
Phate-seems as though he is looking for the opportunity to lynch someone and get to night.

Those are my opinions, not really big on anyone at this point. But dere ya go.

As for myself, I find that if I don't explain something thoroughly, people tend to bullheadedly continue a horrible train of thought and completely fuck the game up.

As for SJ, see my post on why he is not being too agreeable.

Agreed on Phate.

However, I stand by my original statement - I find you too agreeable. Your points of dissent are always surrounded by things like "I agree with most of this", "I definitely didn't mean to say", and "I could see how I was a little unclear." Perhaps this is just your playstyle, but I don't trust diplomats.

This is at least the second time you have said SJ was too agreeable

since

I have presented an argument that said he was not being "too agreeable", yet you have completely ignored my argument despite the fact that you quoted most of the rest of the post that this point was addressed in.

[Mastermind of Sin]

bleh, forgot to add that I'm V/LA for a week.

[Phate]

Clearing this up - there is a difference between agreeing and being agreeable. When I say, "He's being too agreeable," you can substitute agreeable for diplomatic, tactful, etc.

[FaerieLord]

Phate, you are supposed to ride the bicycle forwards, not backwards!

[somestrangeflea]

General thoughts on the setup...

Yep, going to be hard.

No counterclaims until the late game will be a good policy here.

Define "late game", please. I think that counterclaims are a fairly safe things once at least 3 Triums have been claimed but I'm not sure...

This game is going to be loaded with WIFOM:
1. If a Triumvirate truthfully claims. The scum could kill them, removing one ability, which puts the scum in a better position. The scum could also leave them alive, hoping to get them lynched under the "well, they must be scum, because if they weren't, they'd be dead" theory, and get rid of all the town's abilities.
2. The safest claim for scum is Triumvirate, as the town will naturally be hesitant to lynch a Trium claimer. However, surely that means that anyone who claims Vanilla Townie

must

be a Vanilla Townie. But then, the Mafia will claim Vanilla, won't they? And so on...

In other news, I'm pleased because the above things are actually meet the proper definition of WIFOM, rather than the fake one a lot of people seem to attach to any form of 2-choice situation...

We also must remember that the scum can get the Triumvirate abilities, which wastes them, or, in the case of the Roleblocker power, can actually hinder the town.

Also, we have to evaluate the risk of putting a player at -1...
If that player is Triumvirate, could the Mafia be willing to out one of themselves as scum to quicklynch them? Perhaps a -2 claim is safer?

Not too sure what the best way to play is, but I think that a consistent plan will work well, and I think that we need to spend some time trying to come up with one.

[Shanba]

Vote Count:
1: Sir Tornado

(MoS)

1: skitzer

(somestrangeflea)

1: MoS

(YuanTi)

1: FaerieLord

(someone2)

1: Spider Jerusalem

(Miztef)

1:Phate

(Flyinghawk)

Not voting: skitzer, spurgistan, phate, Spider Jerusalem, FaerieLord, Sir Tornado,

[somestrangeflea]

Unvote

for 'twas random.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Where did Sir T go?

[Miztef]

so, I got prodded.

I don't have a whole lot to say right now, however phate has been looking more and more suspicious.

I'm still struggling greatly with the claiming. I do agree that leaving players at L-2 is much safer then L-1. I am starting to think no lynch is the only sensible solution at this point. Having some info from a detective (if mafia counterclaim, that's fine, deal with it as normal) would be helpful. Plus, with the roleblocker and doctor still in, there is a chance there wont be a nightkill, and information could be gained.

The way I see it, information from the roles is the only way to get us started on a good foot this game. I think I'm gonna go right ahead and

unvote Vote: No Lynch

(I couldn't find in the rules if we can vote no lynch or not, but I assume here it's a possibility)

[spurgistan]

Maybe a no-lynch isn't that bad at all, remember, if we lose one triumvirate, the power roles are all gone, as far as I understand the rules. IF that's mistaken, then disregard this post. If we lynch normal town today (which is the most likely result, as they should be the only ones not to claim trium) then the scum odds of hitting one of the trium goes from 1/9 to 1/8. Granted, the trium odds of hitting the scum are equal, for now, but at this stage of the game I would definitely say protecting those of us in the triumvirate is more important than killing the scum.

Vote: No Lynch

[somestrangeflea]

If we lynch normal town today (which is the most likely result, as they should be the only ones not to claim trium)

Did you not see my last post...?

No-lynch doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Unvote, Vote: No-Lynch

Investigation results should be claimed

instantly

tomorrow. Anyone else who got powers should claim what they got, but not who they targetted. Thoughts..?

[Mastermind of Sin]

I think this no lynch wagon is going a little too quickly for me. Any vote that gets 3 agreements in so short a time makes me wary. Many times it's an indication that those people should be looked at. Not that I'm saying everyone on it is scum. Only that it looks a little suspicious. To be honest, I considered No Lynch myself. And rejected it. Time will show if no lynch is the play, but it's not the time

yet

. Right now, we need to discuss more before going to night. I like the pressure that's going on right now, and we should keep it up. Unless someone has a compelling argument to support phate's innocence, it's probably time for me to vote him. Maybe I'll consider no lynch eventually, but not right now.

Unvote, Vote: Phate

[Miztef]

@MoS: But what if, by some crazy chance, phate is actually triumvirate? Can we really afford to risk losing all power roles day 1?

If he does happen to be a triumvirate, that means we have 10 players left come tomorrow, 7 town and 3 mafia, no power roles. It would be a horrible horrible position.

It is very rare to hit scum day 1. The only time I've seen it happen was when I was the scum. (Although, I've only played a few games on this site, and a few more on others) So, the we could be hitting town, which is still 7 - 3 tomorrow (most likely), but we do have power roles intact.

By doing a no lynch, at worst we are at 8-3 tomorrow, with no extra info (if the detective died or was blocked). Doesn't seem horribly bad to me, considering we are likely to get at least some information for the cost of 1 player.

[somestrangeflea]

By doing a no lynch, at worst we are at 8-3 tomorrow, with no extra info (if the detective died or was blocked).

The Mafia could be

given

the Cop, which there is an additional 25% chance of, and will give us no information.

[Phate]

Going to agree with MoS on all counts here, I think. The no lynch wagon is odd at best (at least as bad as anything I've done, says I, but no one's asking). I can't think of any situation in this game where no lynch would be better than lynch.

And objectively, my play looks the scummiest right now. So I can't find too much fault with his vote, either.

Miztef, your logic kinda sucks.

You can apply the "But what if he's trium? Safer to no lynch" to any player at any point in the game. If no lynch, we lose 1 town. If lynch, we lose potentially 2 town, true, BUT we gain valuable information by watching others react to the events leading up to the lynch.

Unless there's multiple, opposing scum (mafia+sk, double mafia, mafia+cult, w/e), the town will always have a higher potential probability to hit town than scum. The only way to circumvent this is by analysing players' behaviour, and one of the best (if not just the best, period) ways to do this is to ride a wagon to the end.

For this reason, I can't be anything but vaguely pissed at myself for acting scummy if I'm lynched. Personally, though, I suspect that one of the scum is on the nolynch wagon, and assign a slightly higher probability to each generation of nolynch vote. Your last post makes me think it's probably you, Miztef - or at least, I don't have much better to go on right now.

[Phate]

Oh. Which prompts a

Vote: Miztef

.

[Miztef]

I suppose we are going to have to lynch at some point, and the value of the night role powers may not be as great as I had thought. (I didn't even really consider the fact mafia may get powers).

One thing I am wondering though is how exactly the roleblocker works... is it 1 specific mafia he has to block (the top one) or will any mafia work?

If it is any mafia, then the roleblocker is more powerful then I had originally thought. I think I would still be happy with a no lynch if this is the case.

==================

My observation about Phate's vote on me is this:

Phate basically couldn't jump on the no lynch wagon. It would make him look even more scummy, as it would be the easiest way to get himself off the chopping block. So, by attacking me, he looks like he is trying to be helpful (scum hunting).

However, the flaw I see here is that his voting me implies himself as scum! Why in the world would I go out of my way as scum to save phate (as town) and go for a no lynch instead? Unless he was my scumbuddy, there is really no good reason for this.

To my knowledge, no one else is under any real suspicion besides phate. Why no lynch when I could sit back and let a townie be lynched?


I do agree however, that the speed at which people agreed to the no lynch was quite fast. I believe it is likely 1 of the other no lynchers, plus phate, are scumbuddies.

I'm just gonna simplify what I mean here:

Phate = in danger
I suggest no lynch.
spur + SSF agree with no lynch

Phate suggests I am mafia. However, with me as mafia, and himself as town, why would I want to get attention off him?

If Phate = mafia, then spur and/or SSF could be trying to get heat off of him, in a townie looking way.

So,

HoS: Phate, FoS: spur, SSF

[Phate]

That's true, Miztef. I hadn't thought of that.

[Flyinghawk]

That's true, Miztef. I hadn't thought of that.

Thats your only defense?

I think the no lynch would be a decent vote choice to buy the town more time to establish scum possibilities, its only a good vote choice if we don't already have a signifigant scum lead, which we do, and thats phate.
While I don't want to overeagerly jump into pushing for a lynch of phate, I'm going to ask for the other players in this game to say their thoughts on Phate, pretty please?

[Phate]

I thought my post was self-explanatory. I know I'm town, and so do the scum. And Miztef's right - why vote no lynch when there's a possible townie lynch? So that makes the no lynch votes look less scummy to me, even if I disagree. On the other hand, it does reflect very poorly on me, so there's WIFOM there.