Mini 520 - Triumvirate Mafia - ABANDONED

[spurgistan]

well, don't the mafia have to guess what the other mafia will claim? Unless they planned this out beforehand, they basically have to guess which claim is the correct one...

oh... wait... they'll see other claims before theirs... hmmm... is it possible to do encrypted claims, so we each claim in an encrypted message, then give the decrypt key after everyone has posted their "claim"?

In a word,

Maybe, but it's really not cool Ok, that was more than a word. But still.

In a non-ethics-and-cipher related point, the scum can very easily avoid all claiming the same thing by waiting to see what the other scum have claimed. Even a cipher may not work perfectly in this regard, as the thread indicates.

[skitzer]

I don't know. The worst case scenario for us would be a 5 trium- 7vanilla split. It may not be a good idea after all to have a massclaim.

[Miztef]

@phate: I was refering to cyphering the claims, not the mass claim itself.

[FaerieLord]

@skitzer. Lets say they claim in the worst case scenario for us. If there are two that claim triums, next day we'll be at a 2 trium, 2 mafia scenario, giving us a 50% hit. Meanwhile, we can guess at the mafia in the vanilla group. So while we're deducting vanillas, the mafia will be singling themselves out.

Also, with that scenario, if the triums claim which power they have we can guess who is lying easier. Why? If two people claim that they are trium roleblockers, if the real roleblocker dies, guess which one is mafia?

[Elmo]

On an ethics viewpoint, my view on the thread stands: I believe such things should be disallowed. That said, the idea is an interesting one.

My gut says that mafia do want a mass claim, but they haven't agreed on who claims what. The lack of coordination imposed by a enciphered mass claim changes things somewhat. I'll have to think about that a bit.

FaerieLord: The triumvirates do not know which power they control; see the role PMs on page 1. I agree somewhat, but I am more concerned about the solo mafiate in the vanilla group. That said, I do see both sides of the arguement.

Mod

: The first question to be answered would therefore be: is such an enciphered mass claim permissible?

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm ethically against an organized cipher claim. I think it goes against the spirit of the game, mostly. I don't really have a problem with the occasional single person that does it, but an organized cipher mass claim is just an attempt to break not the

setup

, but the entire

game

of mafia.

[Miztef]

I have actually just come across the idea recently in another game, and it was seen as unethical there as well.

However, I don't understand how this is so in this situation. Should we not be allowed to all claim at the same time? Must claims be said in a particular order? If that is the rule of the game, then so be it.

Even with the mafia getting to choose how they are each going to claim, I still believe one of the greatest advantages of doing such a plan is having no careless risk of hitting triumvirate. If we so choose, we can go after townies as long as 1 mafia claimed townie and keep the triums alive. That way, the power roles, at worst, would be eliminated in 3 days, and, if that's the case, the mafia who claimed trium would be found.

[Cephrir]

As much as I don't like encrypted claims, I think it may be the correct play here.

[Phate]

My stand is that an encrypted massclaim is superior in every way to an ordinary massclaim.... BUT, I'm still against the idea of a massclaim (After thinking about the possible splits in mafia claiming, I decided that it would be a nightmare).

[Miztef]

I still stand by the idea of a massclaim, because, barring how helpful it will be to the town to find scum, at least we won't have to deal with a claim every single time someone is near lynch. Especially when people claim triumvirate, it's gonna be hard as well to actually decide on lynching someone because of these claims.

I also still believe though, that a massclaim will benefit the town by knowing how many scum are in each particular group. The worst case is probably 7 civs, 5 triums, but even then, if the scum decide to start plucking off triums, once it gets down to 3 triums, it's not even so bad if we lynch the last 1, since we only lose that 1 power, plus we have 2/3 chance to hit scum anyway.

[FaerieLord]

I didn't get the ethics part? What is so unethical about a mass claim?

[somestrangeflea]

There's nothing unethical with a massclaim. It's when we start having encrypted massclaims that the game starts breaking.

Bascially, I agree with MoS.

If I have to, I'll participate in an encrypted massclaim, but I won't enjoy it...

[Mastermind of Sin]

I have actually just come across the idea recently in another game, and it was seen as unethical there as well.

However, I don't understand how this is so in this situation. Should we not be allowed to all claim at the same time? Must claims be said in a particular order? If that is the rule of the game, then so be it.

Even with the mafia getting to choose how they are each going to claim, I still believe one of the greatest advantages of doing such a plan is having no careless risk of hitting triumvirate. If we so choose, we can go after townies as long as 1 mafia claimed townie and keep the triums alive. That way, the power roles, at worst, would be eliminated in 3 days, and, if that's the case, the mafia who claimed trium would be found.

AS SSF pointed out, there is nothing wrong with a mass claim. However, the encrypted mass claim is breaking the game, and it's an unethical move if we do it. I would be sad if we were so bad at this game that we had to break it to have a chance at winning.

[spurgistan]

I'll massclaim, but I refuse to participate in an encrypted one.

[FaerieLord]

I'd do either one, as I still fail to see what's so unethical.

[Flyinghawk]

I'd do either one, as I still fail to see what's so unethical.

THe only reason I can think of is, this game's purpose is to find out who has each role (who is the mafia, who are the town, who is the serial killer, Etc etc etc) so to put that out there right away at the beginning is sort of weird, i guess.

[somestrangeflea]

A ciphered massclaim is unethical as it essentially takes away the one possible way a scum can work around a massclaim - being able to work

around

the other claims.

To be short, a ciphered massclaim is unethical as it can break almost

every

setup, and, to be honest, it's a pretty cheap way to get a town win.

[Miztef]

ah, so it's unethical in the sense that it's "too good" and is basically considered a cheat. That's understandable.

So, we still have to decide between a doing a massclaim or not though.

I'm still for a massclaim, How many people are still against it?

[Elmo]

Me. 's pretty clear what the problem with it are, imo. If you're for it, you need to start explaining you me exactly what we do in each scenario.

[FaerieLord]

I cannot see why it breaks anything. As long as we win I don't care, but sure, I'm in for a massclaim not a ciphered one.

[Miztef]

except in the case of 6 trium claims, we always look into the townies first.

Let's say we get 7 civs, 5 triums. By lynching only townies first, we first of all, have a chance of hitting a scum, even if the odds aren't amazing. In this situation, the triums opinons could be seen as less useful, because it is a 2/5th's chance they are scum, where as townies are 1/7th, and therefore likely town. Once we hit that scum, we either have a decent amount of confirmed townies (if they didn't nk many) and just have to beat through the scum in the trium. Or we have only 3 or so candidates left in the trium, and we can crush the scum in there easily.

In the case of 8 civs, 4 triums, we still try to eliminate the civs, and once the 2 scum are found in there we have a good amount of confirmed civs, and we can pick apart the trium.

In both cases, the mafia can't just kill off all the trium, because they would be found. although, in the 4 trium situation, they may narrow it down to 1 trium 1 mafia quickly.

I think it's fairly obvious what happens in the 9 civ, 3 trium case (always go after civs with 3 confirmed civs right off the bat) and the 6 civ, 6 trium case. (although, maybe a no lynch or 2 may be useful in this situation, since if a civ claims cop, they are for sure the cop and we can completely trust their intell)

[Shanba]

Ciphered massclaim is disallowed.

[Elmo]

^ Miztif's post is the kind of thing that needs to be happening.

Let's say we get 7 civs, 5 triums. By lynching only townies first, we first of all, have a chance of hitting a scum, even if the odds aren't amazing.

We got 1 in 7. If we just lynch people as usual, we got 3 in 12 = 1 in 4. Why is this better, again? You just halved our odds.

In this situation, the triums opinons could be seen as less useful, because it is a 2/5th's chance they are scum, where as townies are 1/7th, and therefore likely town.

Everyone here right now only has a 25% chance of being scum. How much does that help? Not much. The problem is not we need people "probably innocent", the problem is we need to find

which person is scum

, and it's harder to pick one person out of seven than it is three out of twelve.

Once we hit that scum, we either have a decent amount of confirmed townies (if they didn't nk many) and just have to beat through the scum in the trium. Or we have only 3 or so candidates left in the trium, and we can crush the scum in there easily.

Key word is "once". If we lynch protown d1 d2 d3, we lose. So we don't actually have very long to find that one vanilla scum. Problem!

[FaerieLord]

Elmo, if the town doesn't lynch correctly three times, then we deserve to lose.

That said, mitzef nailed it. I love the plan

[Elmo]

FaerieLord: With the greatest respect, you're missing the point. Going through with the mass claim

makes it more likely

that we won't lynch correctly three times. Yes?