Mini 546: House Mafia - Game Over

[vollkan]

vollkan I think you're reading armlx's percentages backwards. He does it the opposite of you with town =0 scum =100.

The difference is actually that he seems to be doing an "innocent until proven guilty" (every starting at 0%) whereas mine is "neutral until proven either way" (with everyone starting at 50%).

As for my Adel vote, it was more a pressure vote, I didn't like her bandwagoning. But I guess your right. Meta'ing her a bit more, she seems to play like this often.

Shaft.ed, I know you're an intelligent player - smart enough to know random wagoning from dodgy vote-hopping. I find it very hard to believe that you would mistakenly take issue with Adel's wagoning - and then try and peg it on meta rather than on the fact that it was apparent random wagoning.

FoS: shaft.ed

I don't think her chaos-wagoning is a towntell or a scumtell. I see no reason, in principle, why it should be more likely to come from either.

That said, this criticism can't be applied to you alone:

The same goes for Pooky in #82. I haven't played with Pooky before, but I doubt someone with so much experience really can't distinguish chaos-causing behaviour from scummy behaviour.

TG in #85 bases it on her wagoning being team-based (I don't think this is a scumtell) and on the wagoning itself (which he says he disagrees with - not a scumtell). This position suffers from the same lack of distinction as shaft.ed's and pooky's.

I don't like any of the attacks

for

bandwagoning.

I clearly was wrong with the wording of this comment. I should have made more clear what I was referencing at the time, and that from your response I could see that you were playing for reaction.

What response are you talking about?

Also, what was your impression of Adel's wagoning when you saw fit to express your dislike of it? I want to know how it is that you failed to spot random wagoning.

I'd like Pooky and TG to answer this also.

vollkan: teeheehee, it's just a random jokey thing! Then why are you still voting me? *frowny* I hope there is a higher purpose. Also what's the deal with just having a little aside conversation with Dean for like three pages? This isn't Shakespeare.

IGMEOY: vollkan

Poor little TG doesn't like my vote: roll: There is no higher purpose. Anyway, random stage is obviously over, so

Unvote

.

Oh, and as for Dean, that's because I asked him questions which he still hasn't responded to

[Dean Harper]

mod: can we get a vote count?

[Adel]

armix and Adel voting partnership noted.

it is all an illusion in your mind.

unvote, vote: shaft.ed[/b[

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vote Count

TrustGossip - Volkan
Adel - CuriousKarmaDog, Shafted
Dean - Erg0
Jive - Adel, Pooky
Shafted - Armix, Jive

6 to fire.

Come on guys, don't bother me when I'm high...

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

So many people sitting on the fence with regards to shafted.

WHAT WILL HE DO NOW THAT THE SHARKS ARE CIRCLING AND HE IS BLEEDING LIKE HE IS MISSING AN ARM?

DUN DUN DUN.

Dance for me Shafted,

Dance Baby Dance.

re:Volkan I believe in attacking, I do not fail to see anything.

[TrustGossip]

Dean please do something so vollkan can do something.

Also, shaft.ed, you'll basically be... well shafted if you don't do something.

LOVES YA *muah*

[curiouskarmadog]

armix and Adel voting partnership noted.

it is all an illusion in your mind.

unvote, vote: shaft.ed[/b[

well I assume that was a vote for shafted..which is the third time you and arm have voted together...think it is too obvious though..ugh

unvote

so Adel, why the obvious chage in playstyle?

[Adel]

ckd: it is early on day 1. Normally the random-nonsense phase is over before I join in. This time I felt like participating in the lunacy.

[shaft.ed]

smart enough to know random wagoning from dodgy vote-hopping. I find it very hard to believe that you would mistakenly take issue with Adel's wagoning - and then try and peg it on meta rather than on the fact that it was apparent random wagoning.

I've actually never played in a game with unabashed bandwagon hopping to the extreme that Adel was using. The times I have seen heavy bandwagoning it has been either from scum or from townies that end up outing power roles, so I don't like it. The uses of heavy bandwagoning in my experience are 1) to pressure a player into a poor response thus building a case on them [usually scum], 2) to counterattack players who vote the wagoner [generally from scum] or 3) simply to generate discussion and latch onto "odd" reactions to the wagon

. Since Adel was jumping off wagons before they could get going I knew it wasn't #1. So I wanted to see how she would react to some votes being added to her in order to discern between 2 & 3. She didn't heavily attack me or CKD for our votes and she did point out JiveMachines discrepency, this lead me to believe she was motivated to move the game out of random and generate some useful leads. My post saying as such was obviously lazy and incorrect.

What response are you talking about?

I'm refering to a calm inquisitve reaction to votes and pointing out the suspicious without a vote from JiveMachine. This post:

I couldn't have expected better results: just a little bit of erratic behavior brought out two votes and a wagon push by a lurking player. unvote, vote: The Jive Machine for the scummy behavior of keeping a low profile and only popping in long enough to try to add some fuel to the hottest fire.

I want to know how it is that you failed to spot random wagoning.

As I said I didn't fail to spot it, I wanted to know the motivation behind it.

[curiouskarmadog]

let me try again

unvote

[Adel]

183 is a great and powerful post.

unvote[/b[

[vollkan]

UnFoS: shaft.ed

Good responses to the questions I asked you.

[armlx]

Still not buying it.

[Erg0]

Well that was a lot of fuss over nothing in particular.

I'm still happy with my Dean vote. I'd urge others to join me in the hope of forcing him to expand on his previous answer to my question.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

shafted def scum now

[TrustGossip]

To vollkan: I have an ideological inclination against random wagoning. In addition, I thought her attitude was poor, but of course that was a ploy to generate antagonism and fish out scum, or so some have conjectured.

To Erg0: I also still have some problems with Dean, but I tend to be very careful with my voting. Plus a few players are about equal with Dean in terms of suspicion.

[shaft.ed]

Pooky would you like to do something besides fan the flames. These are you last four posts.

shafted def scum now

So many people sitting on the fence with regards to shafted.

WHAT WILL HE DO NOW THAT THE SHARKS ARE CIRCLING AND HE IS BLEEDING LIKE HE IS MISSING AN ARM?

DUN DUN DUN.

Dance for me Shafted,

Dance Baby Dance.

re:Volkan I believe in attacking, I do not fail to see anything.

he is panicking

look at the frenetic posting

omg owned

shafted so scum

And it's not just restricted to me, here are you insights on TheJiveMachine

vote JiveMachine

the time for pettiness is over.

It is time for bilateral action against the common enemy.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

What do you want me to contribute to this game other than who I think are scum?

I am not giving you my recipe for my special cookies.

they are age old family secret.

[vollkan]

What do you want me to contribute to this game other than who I think are scum?

The reasons you have for suspecting whoever it is you think is scum.

[Adel]

What do you want me to contribute to this game other than who I think are scum?

I am not giving you my recipe for my special cookies.

they are age old family secret.

this reminded me of the story:

Gutei raised his finger whenever he was asked a question about Zen. A boy attendant began to imitate him in this way. When a visitor asked the boy what his master had preached about, the boy raised his finger.

Gutei heard about the boy's mischief, seized him and cut off his finger with a knife. As the boy screamed and ran out of the room, Gutei called to him. When the boy turned his head to Gutei, Gutei raised up his own finger. In that instant the boy was enlightened.

When Gutei was about to die, he said to the assembled monks,"I received this one-finger Zen from Tenryu. I used it all my life and yet could not exhaust it" and then he passed away.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

In the field of diagnostic medicine, reasons are overrated.

The same is true of mafia.

[vollkan]

And in the field of law, reasons are crucial ("Your Honour, he is guilty because I say so" is not going to go down too well)

Thus, my next question to you is:
Why is mafia more like diagnostic medicine than a court of law?

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Reasons are also overrated in the Law Room.

For example, let us say a man commits rape, but the police get the evidence through an illegal search.

Then they would be obligated in a court of law to let this rapist go free due to their illegal procedure.

We can not let the bindings of law constrain us, we must meet the Mafia with swift action and merciless attack.

IN a court of law it is crucial that we do not punish the innocent, in a mafia game it is crucial that we punish the guilty.

Let's say there are twelve people, you know that the 8 mafia are within these twelve people and the game has a total of a hundred players. If you have no way of figuring out who among those twelve are mafia, then it is a perfectly acceptable and indeed and good strategy for the town to kill all twelve of those people in order to gurantee a win for everyone.

Now consider the same scenario in a court of law, if we were to know that there are 8 criminals among twelve people but that 4 of them are completely innocent and we had no way of figuring out who was who, we would have no choice but to let them all go, we can't punish the innocent in order to insure that the guilty are also punished.

This is different in diagnostic medicine, if a patient is dying and it could be due to failures in twelve possible areas, and you know that one of those areas is causing his illness, then it is definitely a viable option to give him a blanket treatment for all possible areas.

[vollkan]

Reasons are also overrated in the Law Room.

For example, let us say a man commits rape, but the police get the evidence through an illegal search.

Then they would be obligated in a court of law to let this rapist go free due to their illegal procedure.

We can not let the bindings of law constrain us, we must meet the Mafia with swift action and merciless attack.

Ah, but the example you give doesn't refute my point that reasons are crucial in law.

Even if the evidence was legitimate, the alleged felon would not be convicted unless there was a good case.

Thus, whilst you are correct that the legality of the means of gaining the reasons is also necessary, it is not sufficient because reasons are also necessary.

Let's say there are twelve people, you know that the 8 mafia are within these twelve people and the game has a total of a hundred players. If you have no way of figuring out who among those twelve are mafia, then it is a perfectly acceptable and indeed and good strategy for the town to kill all twelve of those people in order to gurantee a win for everyone.

Now consider the same scenario in a court of law, if we were to know that there are 8 criminals among twelve people but that 4 of them are completely innocent and we had no way of figuring out who was who, we would have no choice but to let them all go, we can't punish the innocent in order to insure that the guilty are also punished.

This is different in diagnostic medicine, if a patient is dying and it could be due to failures in twelve possible areas, and you know that one of those areas is causing his illness, then it is definitely a viable option to give him a blanket treatment for all possible areas.

But there are not 100 people in this town. There are 10. Town can only win if it eliminates the mafia first. To eliminate the mafia first, good reasons are necessary. Our situation is closer to the court of law one except we do have a means of finding out the scum - by giving our reasons and discussing.

Or, maybe I am wrong. How do we apply your 'diagnostic medicine' approach here in such a way that it is actually more beneficial than the 'court of law' approach?

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

The question posed was not as to whether this game of mafia was more like diagnostic medicine but mafia in general.

The obvious answer is that in Mafia, we do not need to prove guilt beyond any doubt, whereas you would need to show that in a court of law.

This is also true in diagnostic medicine, the doctors do not need to prove it is due to a specific disease or cause beyond any doubt, but rather can act on a fairly good guess.

You can apply my diagnostic medicine approach by lynching Shafted.