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

[Budja]

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.

That doesn't make sense to me.

"Roffman is lying", "Their are two communiques" and "Scum were back to back" are our options.

If we eliminate (or at least greatly reduce the possibility) the second option , then the chance Roffman is lieing greatly increases.
If the reverse happens and multiple communiques occur then the chance Roffman is lying decreases greatly.

Not too much is left open to chance. We came close to lynching roffman with the information we have now earlier. What harm is there is gaining more information.

[Juls]

In retrospect, I think I misunderstood what you were suggesting. I thought you were saying that the second communique would be coming from roffman but you meant someone else "gets" a communique in the sense that they "get the ability to send" another communique. This might be a viable option but I don't think that means we should stop looking at roffman today.

[Budja]

I am definitely not suggesting we ignore roffman today.

It's just a idea to help reduce all of the uncertainty. Basically the plan is if someone has 2 communiques tonight/tomorrow, then send them both.

I think more people need to speak up and share their views. Only half the town is really talking, the rest are following/lurking.

[Ectomancer]

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.

Valid point.

[hohum]

I can't believe anyone is seriously considering a no lynch.

[don_johnson]

I can't believe anyone is seriously considering a no lynch.

why do you seem to ignore the dynamic nature of this game? you are asking us to rely only on static probability. lynches reveal nothing in this game, so there is nothing to be gained from a mislynch other than a raise in the static probability that we might lynch scum.

remember, static probabilities in this game are based on a random lynch. i.e. 2 player scum team in a nine player game results in the average townie being able to pick someone at random and have a 25% chance of choosing scum.

25% represents the static probability of finding scum at random. raising that number doesn't inherently increase the odds of town winning the game because town does not lynch at random.

it is the most sound conclusion i have drawn from this game yet.

[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
magicrabbit and RossWilliam have requested replacement via PM

[dahill1]

Cybele replaces magicrabbit effective immediately.
Still searching for RossWilliam replacement

[Budja]

I understand your objection hohum, what I don't understand is the strength of your objection.

Gain from lynch:
- Remove greatest suspect from game
- Chance of discovering alignment as in original game (Very unreliable)

Gain from no-lynch:
- No risk taken by lynching

The next day we have a likely informed lynch tomorrow (possible plan re. roffman, power roles, communiques, whatever).

Lynching day 1 is really a risk taking thing. Take the chance of lynching mafia for the larger chance of lynching town.
The big difference is we don't get to see the result.

Actually another thought.

-Push greatest suspect to L-1.
-Claim
-Lynch

Then we have a greater knowledge of who we lynched .

Personally I find it hard to decide .

[Cybele]

Reading over the thread now. I'm about 3 pages in, so expect my response tomorrow morning.

[Cybele]

Okay. I just finished reading, but it's getting pretty late. Here are my thoughts so far:

Not lynching

is a bad idea right now, given that we don't have a deadline. We still have plenty to discuss, so pushing for either a lynch or a no-lynch before we've made sure to go over everything is irrational. We may as well use the resources we've been given.

Of the

3 possibilities

regarding the message Roffman received I think that the chance of there being roles with more than one Communique is very likely. I don't however believe it is likely to manifest the same way (randomly handed out by mod each day and night) due to a couple changes in Town roles (assuming Juls claim is correct, which I think is likely). I very much liked Ectomancer's plan to try and establish whatever information we can, though. (I'd like to take this time to assert that I have neither gained a second Communique, or any other "one-phase-only" power, and that I am not the one who messaged Roffman.) I think it's probably least likely that Scum were able to fake the chain after being placed side-by-side.

Overall player impressions:

BSG -

very helpful summaries, and is giving me a pro-town vibe. I'd like to see more from her, but she's understandably V/LA.

Budja -

Neutral right now. Of the "active" players, he is most scummy, but only because I fluctuate between agreeing with his posts and disagreeing more than anyone else.

Casey -

Townish, but inexperienced. Most of where I disagree with her lies not in faulty logic, or scumtells, but in misunderstandings, or disagreements "game playing". At the start of the game, i had a very town feel from her, but it's decreased over time.

don_johnson/dorvaan -

hasn't posted a lot, and mostly advocating a no-lynch. No read.

Ectomancer -

While I agree that it is dangerous for the town to blindly follow one person, I feel most of Ecto's posts have been well-supported and reasoned out. He seems willing to concede his argument when faced with a reasonable counter-point, and has kept the discussion relatively open (with exceptions). Town-ish (cautiously, as he could very well be slick-tongued scum).

hohum -

Played with him back when he was dcorbe, so I recognise his style. Even without being mostly cleared through the lack of appearance of a 1-shot cop, I'd place him as very likely Town. I'm glad he's cleaned himself up a bit from the start of the game. He's pleasant in comparison.

Juls -

I'm inclined to believe her claim, as it certainly is confirmable. Her arguments seem mostly valid, as well. Likely town.

Reecer6 -

I agree with Casey: Reecer did not send that Communique to roffman. However, he's still sending scum vibes. He'll make a good policy lynch, better than a no-lynch in my opinion.

roffman -

Well, I like the idea that roffman could be lying, but I suspect a role currently has multiple Communiques... Regardless, I don't think roffman makes a good lynch yet.

I suppose I'll

VOTE: Receer6

for now. I dislike the idea of not lynching, so until we have a better target, he'll be my default.

[Budja]

It is probably a bad idea to keep Reecer around if he isn't going to improve but I would prefer a replacement to a policy lynch.

[Cybele]

It is probably a bad idea to keep Reecer around if he isn't going to improve but I would prefer a replacement to a policy lynch.

Obviously, but as it is, it doesn't seem he's going to be replaced.

[Juls]

Hi cybele, welcome. Is there any reason why you didn't include RossWilliam and Braeden in your summary?

[hohum]

@Cybele: Welcome to the game.

Your point about not following people around blindly in this game is severely understated.

This is a no-reveal game. Which means we still gain information during a lynch but not after (because we don't see the flip. This work's to the town's disadvantage if the scum team turns out to be the principles involved in pushing these wagons. We're completely blind to scum tactics that involve aggressive grandstanding.

Ecto likes to talk about how he believes he is helping the town, and how he is such a strong leader. I would submit to the rest of the group that this sort of diluted self-aggrandizing attitude is very harmful to the town in a no reveal game.

Further, his attitude at the beginning of the game sucked, hard. He did several things that I do not approve of:

First, he jumped all over me for a joke vote.

Second, he tried like hell to throw shit on anyone who opposed his communique plan, even if that opposition stemmed from something as simple as a lack of understanding of the mechanics of the game.

Third, he burned about 15 days of original deadline putting this plan into action. He also backed off of his vote at a very critical time where we needed a lynch target and started to tear down the Roffman wagon. The deadline has since been repealed, but he had no way to know that the mod was going to do that.

Fourth, he stalls (see previous point) and waffles. For example I have gone on his radar from being confirmed scum, to being "nearly" confirmed town, back to leaning scum as of the last time he gave an opinion on my game play.

Fifth: He was drawing conclusions about people's alignment VERY early in the game

Sixth, he likes to preach about ad-hom attacks, yet he dinged me 3 times in one post. Hypocrisy is very telling.

Seventh, he's been attacking people that I'm getting mostly town reads from. Juls for instance. Even after the discussion ensued about how she could verify her claim he was still advocating her lynch -- granted no longer in such an immediate fashion. This shows that he really doesn't seem to care who gets lynched and why.

I like a roffman lynch; however, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about Ectomancer.

As such

Unvote

Vote: Ectomancer

Also, I'm still vehemently opposed to a no-lynch. And I'm not ignoring the dynamics of the game any more than you're ignoring the hard math behind why in every single MS game to date regardless of mechanics a no lynch on D1 has or would have harmed the town (even if marginally) more than it would have helped the town. A D1 no lynch in ANY situation flies in the face of years of experience and general accepted practice on this site.

Anyone pushing for a D1 no-lynch should be lynched on policy.

[Reecer6]

Hohum, on 1, He thought your vote was real, as you have evidence. When I look back on that, I see how idiotic that was. But on everything else, I agree.
Also, everyone, post all the communiques you got so far, not counting password. I got none.

[Casey]

RL has made it so that I haven't had a chance to keep active these past few days, but I was able to skim the last few posts. Reecer at the end made me double-take just as I was about to close the window:

Also, everyone, post all the communiques you got so far, not counting password. I got none.

Wait, what? Are you saying that you didn't receive a communique?

[don_johnson]

Also, everyone, post all the communiques you got so far,

not counting password.

I got none.

i think he's saying he got just the one.

also, note that hohum seems eager to lynch just about anyone. being staunchly opposed to a no lynch is just not thinking outside the box. if we follow his reasoning or agree to some sort of policy lynch then we may all as well stop playing and let some random mechanic choose our lynches for us.

I AM PUSHING FOR A NO LYNCH UNLESS WE CAN BE REASONABLY CERTAIN WE ARE GOING TO HIT SCUM.

[hohum]

Eagerness to lynch =\= in a rushing to lynch. I think the discussion is going in the right direction. Also I'm not the only one opposed to a no-lynch.

Also there's nothing to back up your notion that I'd be willing to lynch anyone, as (besides my random vote) I've only changed my vote once all day from roffman to ecto, and I laid out some pretty compelling reasons to do so. Are you saying that my justification for voting ecto is complete crap? If so, why?

[hohum]

Hohum, on 1, He thought your vote was real, as you have evidence. When I look back on that, I see how idiotic that was. But on everything else, I agree.
Also, everyone, post all the communiques you got so far, not counting password. I got none.

So you ARE actually paying attention to the game. Why aren't you contributing to it? Why are you hiding behind my analysis? Don't you have any opinions by now?

[hohum]

I AM PUSHING FOR A NO LYNCH UNLESS WE CAN BE REASONABLY CERTAIN WE ARE GOING TO HIT SCUM.

The problem with this is as sure as you are that we're never going to gain any information from a lynch (which is a fallacy, because wagons are a great source of information) because this game is no-reveal, we're never going to be 100% sure that we're lynching scum either. This game is all about subtleties and grey area.

Because we can't get any information out of a flip and examine wagons in retrospect, it makes the mathematical probabilities all that more important.

The special mechanics of the game do not and should not effect the way we should be lynching. No reveal isn't all that special of a mechanic. No reveal games are run on this site all the time. The communiqué mechanic of this game remains completely unaffected whether we decide to no-lynch or not.

[Ectomancer]

All of my statements are there for the record Hohum. You gave plenty of opinions, but little in the way of examples that would demonstrate the validity of the opinion, thus preventing them from being disputed, other than someone saying "Your opinion is wrong." My impression is you simply waited to place your vote until you could be certain that it wouldn't be regarded as ad hominem or OMGUS.

Ecto likes to talk about how he believes he is helping the town, and how he is such a strong leader. I would submit to the rest of the group that this sort of diluted self-aggrandizing attitude is very harmful to the town in a no reveal game.

Incredible irony. At least 75% of the information we are currently debating is a direct result of my ideas and execution of them. You can't argue with results and you look weak trying to protest against "Ecto's claim to leadership". I'm inclined to believe you are frustrated because you are having trouble convincing the town of your own leadership qualities.

It appears to me that your idea of moving the town forward would be to simply lynch someone without any information gained from the actual lynch. I already asked you what else would be established other than voting patterns, and you gave no answer. Voting patterns would also be established in a no lynch situation as well, so the argument does not tip the balance.
Your example of how other mafia games (regardless of their mechanics) always lynch on day 1 really is irrelevant to this game. We aren't drones, nor are we slave to probabilities.
Until you address the holes in your ideas, you won't gain support from the town and turning around to attack me wont gain you support for them either.

[hohum]

Oh I can cite plenty of examples of your scummy behavior as documented in my post above.

Don't think for a second that just because some of your stall tactics have yielded positive results means you're off the hook for the scum tells.

[Cybele]

Also, everyone, post all the communiques you got so far, not counting password. I got none.

Wait, what? Are you saying that you didn't receive a communique?

While I could see if R6 is just being unintelligible, and he meant what don_john is assuming, I'd like it if Reecer could actually respond to a single of the questions directed at him.

@hohum: While I can't be completely sure that it isn't just because I'm being swayed, I actually found that I waffled about your status a lot as well. In fact, most of what I felt about the game came pretty closely to mirroring either something that Ectomancer or Juls would say in a later post. Your argument isn't without merit, but I'm not sure that I agree with all of it.

[Ectomancer]

Oh I can cite plenty of examples of your scummy behavior as documented in my post above.

Don't think for a second that just because some of your stall tactics have yielded positive results means you're off the hook for the scum tells.

And what you'll end up with is showing, or

not

showing is that I'm not so great as I think I am. I'm quite pleased with what I've accomplished myself. As for the stalling, it was pointed out some time ago that in order to get a deadline was to ask. Every time I or someone else asked for an extension it was granted.
On waffling back and forth, I call that weighing new evidence and continuing to brainstorm on the possibilities that exist for the known givens in the situation. I do not possess the certainty that would allow me an unerring path.