Mini 740 - Communiqu├® Mafia 2: Game Over and the Winner is..

[Casey]

Hm, so Hohum was just mocking Ecto by sending a similar message to Magicrabbit? That's a little confusing, but ok.

agreed on wanting more discussion. please do not misconstrue what i am asking as trying to avoid exploring the current avenues. i just think the whole "we must lynch someone!" argument should not apply due to the nature of this particular game. unless we are damn sure we have scum(or uncover a definite 1 for 1 exchange) i see the no lynch as a viable option to be considered over lynching without a measurable degree of certainty. also, if i am horribly wrong on this, feel free to enlighten me.

I'd say no lynch is a viable option if we completely stall out after a reasonable time. (a few weeks?)

Until then,

now that we have time

, 1-for-1 exchanges sound like the best scenarios.

why the change of heart? two posts earlier you sadi this:

And if the other third of the players were posting, I might be able to do more than cross my fingers. I have little to nothing to read on for Reecer, Ross, Dorvaan (now don johnson), MagicRabbit, and Braeden.

We have a deadline approaching

. Your lynch is what I see as the best option from the possibilities. I oppose a no lynch.

hohum explained the odds. though i still believe we should keep the option on the table(8 town, 4 scum = day 2 lylo), it doesn't seem like i made a very strong argument here.

Bolded for emphasis. I didn't know that our deadline was removed in the earlier post.

one note on casey: in 16 +pages of reading this thread, casey is the one and only player to mention the words: "serial killer"

Yeah, I know I mentioned it somewhere (or at least thought I did). I just tried looking for it to no avail. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it early on when we were talking about either the game setup or the cop claim.

(Haha, I've taken so long to write this that you found it.)

Interesting, could you point out the exact place.

sure :

EBWODP:

The theories:
-Some players could be able to do multiple communiques.
Seems very unlikely. First of all, this wasn't the case during the previous game. It would also give scum a huge advantage if the scum have multiple communiques as they could easily confuse town. It also wouldn't make sense to have a 1-shot cop with multiple communiques. He could give his result to multiple players during the day.

I started to think about this, but I didn't want to game the mod. Things go wrong when you game the mod. There could be communique blockers, some

bizarre communique-mining SK

, and so on. Nobody knows. And I hate losing games by gaming the mod.

^^ in response to another player, but still kind of "out-of-the-blue", don't ya think? just something which stuck out to me, i guess.

I was just thinking of roles I had seen before and placing the word "communique" before them to exemplify my dislike for gaming the mod.

---

-Our order involved 2 scum players back to back in the chain.
More likely. The only thing is that it will be hard to find out who they are. I'll try to look at this one if there's perhaps a possibility to find this out.

Ooh. If this is the right answer, then we have some info to go on. There were two or three proposed chain orders, so it might be good to see who was fine with what order.

I'll take a look at this, probably tomorrow

, unless someone beats me to it.

while i'm at it... how'd ^^ work out for you? figure out anything useful?

I was shot down by someone who like, immediately said little could be gained from it... let me find it...

Here we go:

I don't think you will find much. Their was very little talk over the order.

Right after I made my post.

However, while looking back for my post that you brought up, something caught my eye, and

yes

, I've figured out something useful!

Look at this:

Looking at the past few posts, people for the plan most likely have not sent out their PM, and people against the plan (except Roffman) are to likely have sent out their PM to Roffman.

For:
Ectomancer
Reecer
Casey
Budja

Against:
Roffman
Juls

No response:
RossWilliam

N/A:
Hohum

Hasn't posted:
Houseofcards

Made 1 post:
Braeden (apparently is sick, but is still active in other threads)
Dorvaan (No posting since Feb 3)
Magicrabbit (No posting since Feb 3)

I would have to guess that RossWilliam and Juls are the ones who sent you PMs, with any of the "Made 1 post" group also being suspects, depending on when you received your PM.

And this:

I sent my message to Roffman:
Eastern Time: February 4, 2009 @ 9:30 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 5, 2009 @ 1:30 p.m.

Plan was proposed:
Eastern Time: February 5, 2009 @ 1:53 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 6, 2009 @ 5:53 a.m.

Roffman Objects to Plan First Time:
Eastern Time: February 5, 2009 @ 5:05 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 6, 2009 @ 9:05 a.m.

Roffman Claims to have received the cop message:
Eastern Time: February 5, 2009 @ 7:13 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 6, 2009 @ 11:13 a.m.

Now, who could have sent the cop-claim PM?

Ectomancer, Casey, Budja - Possible - Were all for the plan before an order was proposed. Could have more than one communique or a scumbuddy in front of the chain.

RossWilliam - Possible. Lurked before making a stance on the plan. Could have more than one communique or a scumbuddy in front of the chain.

Roffman - Possible - Message could have been faked.

Braeden - Possible - Was sick at the time, but was active on other boards.

Reecer - Highly unlikely - Reecer hasn't done anything.

Juls - Highly unlikely - Postal worker claim.

Hohum - Highly unlikely - Is he self-destructive? A crazy scum gambit?

Houseofcards / BSG - Not possible. Houseofcards was completely inactive on the forums throughout the timeframe.

Dorvaan / Don and Magicrabbit - Not possible. They were inactive throughout the timeframe.

---

So really, there could only be 6 people who could have most likely made the message:

RossWilliam, Braeden, Budja, Casey, Roffman, and Ectomancer.

The oddest thing about this is that EVERYONE on that list was back-to-back!

RossWilliam

--sends to-->

Braeden

--sends-to-->

Budja

--sends-to-->

Casey

Roffman

--sends to-->

Ectomancer

I'm convinced that there's at least 1 scum among us six. I'm leaving myself in as a suspect for completeness. As such, there are 10 possibilities, and I fully believe that one is correct:

1) RossWilliam and Braeden are scumbuddies.
2) Braeden and Budja are scumbuddies.
3) Budja and Casey are scumbuddies.
4) Roffman and Ectomancer are scumbuddies.
5) RossWilliam is a scum with more than one communique.
6) Braeden is a scum with more than one communique.
7) Budja is a scum with more than one communique.
8) Casey is a scum with more than one communique.
9) Roffman is a scum with more than one communique and sent himself the cop-claim, or just plain faked the message.
10) Ectomancer is a scum with more than one communique.

I'm eager to analyze these possibilities (and see what other people have to say, too)! But can someone make sure this makes sense before I go ahead?

[dahill1]

Vote Count

3 - roffman: (Budja, hohum, Braeden)
1 - Casey: (roffman)
1 - No Lynch: (don_johnson)

7 - Not Voting: (BSG, magicrabbit, Reecer6, RossWilliam, Juls, Ectomancer, Casey)

12 alive means 7 to lynch
Prodding magicrabbit and RossWilliam

[Reecer6]

If your 9 scenario proves to be right, we can safely assume Roffman is scum.

[don_johnson]

If your 9 scenario proves to be right, we can safely assume Roffman is scum.

QFT

[Ectomancer]

Great replies Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. How about telling us your ideas for going about proving #9 correct?

[Reecer6]

........

[Ectomancer]

Couple people I might not agree on Casey. Reecer has been around and reading constantly. Might seem like a VI to us, but I believe it has been said this is the way he plays.
Reecer, I'll ask you directly. Did you get a 2nd communique and send a "guilty" to Roffman on Hohum because despite not actually having an investigation, you "thought he was guilty"? I promise not to call you names or insult you, but this would really jack things up. (Yes, I've seen as bad or worse from town 'players')

Magicrabbit posted the morning after I posted the idea, which was on page 2. It is not unusual for people to make their intro post and then not post again for a few days while actually reading because they "don't like the random stage", or "what is there to say on page 2?" I don't see that leaving him off is obvious.

The scum buddy chart is a good one (though we need to add MR and possibly Reecer). Once we have a result on somebody, that gives us a good place to start the conversation following it.
Scum with an extra communique has good probability in my head. I'd like to determine whether Juls is the mechanism before making a randomish lynch to see who might have had it (especially when lynching won't actually tell us on its own). If she

is

then I would assume the likelyhood being good of Roffman lying about recieving a 2nd one today. If she is not, and town both receives and informs us of recieving a 2nd communique tomorrow, there is a good chance (though not certain), that Roffman did indeed receive a 2nd communique, and as I ran through earlier, that would go far towards confirming both Roffman and Hohum. (I could pull out the reasoning again if someone forgot)

To sum up, it looks like good reasoning except for the 2 I mentioned above. I think leaving Dorvaan and Houseofcards is reasonable.

[Ectomancer]

........

You manage expectations quite well.

[Reecer6]

I have never gotten a communique other than the password one.

[hohum]

I have never gotten a communique other than the password one.

You know, you REALLY need to start contributing more. Your saving grace is that LAL (lynch all liars) is a better policy lynch (in that it nets more scum) than LAL (lynch all lurkers)

[hohum]

actually I just realized that both contract to the same acronym. Point still stands.

[don_johnson]

To sum up, it looks like good reasoning except for the 2 I mentioned above. I think leaving Dorvaan and Houseofcards is reasonable.

que? what? are you saying leave dorvan/dj and houseofcards on the list of suspects who sent the "phantom" communique?

are you saying you agree with the no lynch idea?

[hohum]

To sum up, it looks like good reasoning except for the 2 I mentioned above. I think leaving Dorvaan and Houseofcards is reasonable.

que? what? are you saying leave dorvan/dj and houseofcards on the list of suspects who sent the "phantom" communique?

are you saying you agree with the no lynch idea?

Wow. Stretch much?

I absolutely agree.. We should leave them in the list of suspects. Reecer6 as well. They've hardly contributed.

+points DJ

[don_johnson]

thanks. i love points.

[Budja]

I don't think we can rule anyone out as scum. But, as I believe Casey was doing, we can narrow down the search for one particular scum (roffman or communique sender).

About Caseys 10 options.

99% chance one is correct. Narrowing it down, not so easy.

I ask again, universal question, what do you think of my idea re. roffman in my last post.

If we have confirm/deny option 9, we will gain a lot more information.

Also, roffman sending a communique to himself seems very unlikely to me.


@Reecer, I said it before and I say it again. Contribute if you are staying. Pointing out incredibly obvious points and making extremely wishy-washy statements (ie. X is scum but they might not be!) isn't really helpful.
Because of your meta, you are virtually impossible to read.


@don, the sk thing is a bit weird but I like and accept Casey's explanation here.

[don_johnson]

casey's explanation is reasonable. it was just something that stood out on my read through.

i agree with budja here. though lynching may better the static probability of us catching scum day 2, i think we are overlooking the mechanics of this game and the definite advantage to which we can use them. i think lynching with certainty is better than lynching and simply playing the odds.

ecto: i think budja's idea here can determine whether or not the message was faked. juls would be the wild card here. please don't call me names. it hurts my feelings.

[Ectomancer]

To sum up, it looks like good reasoning except for the 2 I mentioned above. I think leaving Dorvaan and Houseofcards is reasonable.

que? what? are you saying leave dorvan/dj and houseofcards on the list of suspects who sent the "phantom" communique?

are you saying you agree with the no lynch idea?

No actually, I missed the "off".

Reecer and MagicRabbit should not be left off.

For discussions sake, I think it would be safe to leave Dorvaan and houseofcards off. MIA, not lurkers IMO.

I'm saying there are pro's and con's to a no lynch. If pressed to choose right now I would say no to it. It's just not the time to worry about it.

[hohum]

Ecto,

Dorvaan has been replaced, and don_johnson is his replacement. He's actively contributing. I'm not saying lynch him today unless he does something REALLY scummy but since he's actually active now he should definitely be accruing scum points for the tells he drops.

[Juls]

Just want to check in before being prodded...I have 10 minutes before class and I will catch up tonight.

[dahill1]

BSG is V/LA. magicrabbit hasn't picked up the prod so I might search for a replacement soon

[Ectomancer]

Ecto,

Dorvaan has been replaced, and don_johnson is his replacement. He's actively contributing. I'm not saying lynch him today unless he does something REALLY scummy but since he's actually active now he should definitely be accruing scum points for the tells he drops.

The time frame we were discussing was just prior to the communique verification idea, and Don wasn't around then. Dorvaan was likely MIA. That's why I don't object to him not being included on Casey's breakdown.


House hunting, cleaning, painting, etc in the coming weeks. I may be sporadic posting for awhile until we find a place and get moved.

[magicrabbit]

Sorry I've had some computer problems... I will need a bit of time to catch up I'm still here.

[Juls]

Falacy Alert!

A no lynch isn't going to net us any MORE information than a lynch will, and we'll be in better shape.

Given that a lynch will literally not reveal anything to us it is important that we have a high level of confidence that the person we are lynching is scum. A no lynch could stop us from mislynching town. It does give the scum an opportunity to have one more kill than town does but during the night we could learn a lot of information possibly through investigations, through communiques etc. Sayiing that we won't get more information is absolutely misleading. I am not advocating a no-lynch (right now) but wanted to point out the incorrectness of this statement

Considering all the uncertainty over roffman, we could do a test. We could see if anyone gets a second communique tonight or tomorrow. If not, then lynch him.
Its not conclusive but the result would swing the probabilities a lot IMO.
Thoughts on this?

Meh...I think this leaves too much open to chance and not knowing enough about the dynamic of the game we could lynch on a very weak reason. I still believe roffman may be lying but I don't think this test would add to the argument enough to do it.

[hohum]

Which part of my statement is the fallacy? Certainly not the "we'll be in better shape" part, because that's ABSOLUTELY true. There's hard math to back that up too.

[Juls]

The part where you say that a no lynch isn't going to net us any MORE information. It may not net us MORE but it certainly CAN net us more! To say that a no lynch could not provide us with more information is misleading.

And the part about "we'll be in better shape" is not necessarily true either. Think of the story of the tortoise and the hare. A slow start does not mean we lose the race.