Mini #1004 - Popularity Mafia (Over)

[PranaDevil]

Xite, the second bit (scum messaging other townies who may be impressionable) I agree with.

The first bit... is utter rubbish. Anyone who fake claims a popularity level will be lynched, no two ways about it. Because if they fake claim it, someone else WILL have that level, and we just lynch one of them. Town have no reason to lie about their popularity level, and scum shouldn't be stupid enough to attempt it.

[vollkan]

OMGUS

Vote: Friend

for not liking Edgeworth.

I didn't claim any role, just a hint as to where I am on the "popularity meter".

I'm glad Mini 951 taught you something

I thought of RVS voting vollkan for the same reason, but opted against it, Prana

Why opt against it?

I know that a mass popularity number claim wouldn't be hugely beneficial in terms of scumhunting, but it would help ensure success at neighborizing. That's all I wanted to get.

The only risk I can see in such a mass popularity claim is that scum may have knowledge that they can use to link popularity to power roles. That seems unlikely to me, though, since it seems that the popularity just affects the neighbourising.

The most obvious, but highly unlikely, advantage of it possibly catching scum fake-popularity-claiming

The other main advantage I see requires more than just a mass popularity claim. The advantage is that a mass claim will maximise the discussion that occurs. I should note that for these purposes, I think we should require people I am generalising here, but it's most likely in scum's interests not to have to talk to townies (risk of being interrogated, slipping up, etc); if popularity remains unclaimed, scum can try avoid having to talk to at least one townie by targeting somebody they think is higher than they are. Having everybody's popularity out in the open would remove any excuse for scum not talking to somebody. In addition to this, I would also say that I think we should implement a policy of requiring people to identify explain their choice of conversation target; it will force people to use the ability for sensible reasons which is both pro-town and anti-scum. At this stage, I think that it's probably best that we don't, as a matter of policy, require the conversation itself to be disclosed (eg. a cop might claim to somebody they have an innocent on) - but it might be a good idea in particular cases.

[PranaDevil]

I've sat here and gone over a few pros and cons of that plan Vollkan, and each time I've found a flaw, I've worked it through in my head and quickly realized that in all actuality, even if scum did manage to pull off what was in my head, it would be completely luck based, and would be almost impossible to pull off the lying needed to make it succeed.

So based on that, I'm all for a full claim of popularity.

[Tasky]

Hi everybody... have a good game

here are some thoughts:
I think it's obvious that more discussion is better than less discussion. Also I think that neighborhood is always good, since each neighbor can interrogate the other independently from the thread, so that scum has to respond to questions and can not just lurk or hope that others respond for him.
Another extremely favorable point is that a cop could investigate a neighbor and if he gets innocent he can talk to that person in private and build an active "townie-cell" (therm borrowed from another forum) which helps protect the cop and get information to the town...
of course scum could pretend to be the cop, but that would be a big risk for them and would expose them... so this too is pro-town
now, since having more neighbors is better than having less neighbors, I think a mass popularity claim will exactly achieve that...
I think power-roles and scum are distributed somehow randomly over the popularity scala so I don't think it would help them find the power-roles.
once we have such a thing, I think it would be best that everyone at night talks to the one who is just one step under them in the popularity scala, so that everyone (save nr.1 and nr.12) has 2 neighbors and there is no one who doesn't have a neighbor...
I think it's kind of obvious that scum will not try to fake their popularity, that would just too easily give them away... so I see no reason why this shouldn't work

still I'm going to wait until the majority agrees before I start outing my popularity-index, maybe someone has a good argument against it.

PS: since we technically are still in RVS, VOTE: Friend cause he is scaring that poor cat...

[Friend]

I agree with vollkan completely. That's what I had in mind when I suggested it. And I highly doubt that the level of popularity is tied to anything (PR-ness, alignment) so I don't think claiming it is rolefishing, like you said xite. Also, xite, why do you think scum would be able to fool a townie in the QT, when if they're that good at playing scum, they'll probably just be fooling them in the thread anyways?

I think it would be best that everyone at night talks to the one who is just one step under them in the popularity scala, so that everyone (save nr.1 and nr.12) has 2 neighbors and there is no one who doesn't have a neighbor...

I like this idea too. But yeah, we should wait 'til everyone's said their piece on the matter before we start claiming numbers.

[Scott Brosius]

I also agree with the neighbor talking with the person below you to maximize avenues of conversation. So I'm fine with popularity claiming.

I think once we get flips though, its going to be tough to remove the influence popularity from scum-hunting. I think it will be hard to ignore it completely.

Vote: vollkan

RVS!

[Andrius]

I'm glad Mini 951 taught you something

It also re-solidified the fact that uber-town players who survive N3 must be scum.

Why opt against it?

I didn't want to come in here and throw my dirty laundry in front of everyone.

The only risk I can see in such a mass popularity claim is that scum may have knowledge that they can use to link popularity to power roles. That seems unlikely to me, though, since it seems that the popularity just affects the neighbourising.

We also might have PRs that actually use this neighborizing mechanic. Say we have a town player who can increase the popularity of a fellow player by one. Or a mafia player who can decrease the popularity of a player by one. /setup speculation

scum can try avoid having to talk to at least one townie by targeting somebody they think is higher than they are. Having everybody's popularity out in the open would remove any excuse for scum not talking to somebody.

In addition to this, I would also say that I think we should implement a policy of requiring people to identify explain their choice of conversation target; it will force people to use the ability for sensible reasons which is both pro-town and anti-scum.

This is good stuff. (I'd cite an ongoing game with similar mechanics, but I'd get killed so.) The scum will definitely try to avoid extra exposure to the town. They'll definitely try to target someone higher than they are, especially if their number is high to begin with.

I'm willing to start the popularity claim, when the time comes, if there's no objections.

[PranaDevil]

We also might have PRs that actually use this neighborizing mechanic. Say we have a town player who can increase the popularity of a fellow player by one. Or a mafia player who can decrease the popularity of a player by one. /setup speculation

Never even had the thought of such a role in my head... so it's interesting you brought it up...

scum can try avoid having to talk to at least one townie by targeting somebody they think is higher than they are. Having everybody's popularity out in the open would remove any excuse for scum not talking to somebody.

In addition to this, I would also say that I think we should implement a policy of requiring people to identify explain their choice of conversation target; it will force people to use the ability for sensible reasons which is both pro-town and anti-scum.

This is good stuff. (I'd cite an ongoing game with similar mechanics, but I'd get killed so.) T

he scum will definitely try to avoid extra exposure to the town. They'll definitely try to target someone higher than they are, especially if their number is high to begin with.

I'm willing to start the popularity claim, when the time comes, if there's no objections.[/quote]

Regarding the bolded bit there, they wouldn't be able to. If we all said "target the person below you in the list" then anyone who didn't would be automatically pointed out as scum. They would basically be forced into neighboring with the person below them or being known as scum.

[Andrius]

Regarding the bolded bit there, they wouldn't be able to. If we all said "target the person below you in the list" then anyone who didn't would be automatically pointed out as scum. They would basically be forced into neighboring with the person below them or being known as scum.

True. So we definitely need to organize a list like that to prevent the scum from being able to fake-claim a failed attempt at neighborizing.

[Friend]

I think most of us are in favor of this...so who wants to start? Andrius and then we can just popcorn from there, or go by the playerlist, or have everyone shout it out at once, doesn't really matter.

[Andrius]

We're still missing 4 people.

Max
TheLonging
Sando
NicolBolas

Should we wait for them a bit? Thread hasn't been open 24 hours yet.

[Friend]

Okay, I guess so.

I think once we get flips though, its going to be tough to remove the influence popularity from scum-hunting. I think it will be hard to ignore it completely.

What do you mean by this? Hopefully the popularity factor helps us scumhunt - why would you want to ignore it completely?

[vollkan]

It also re-solidified the fact that uber-town players who survive N3 must be scum.

I was seriously quite surprised that nobody asked IK or myself why the hell we were still alive come D4.

We also might have PRs that actually use this neighborizing mechanic. Say we have a town player who can increase the popularity of a fellow player by one. Or a mafia player who can decrease the popularity of a player by one. /setup speculation

Interesting point. I'm not sure if it is a flaw, though. My reasoning proceeds as follows:

1) Assuming that such a role could be used in passing period

n

and then the target has the new rank in passing period

n + 1

, then the biggest risk is simply that the person they speak to, if it is somsebody that they could not have spoken to before, will accuse them of having lied about their ranking.

2) However, we already know that it will be impossible for scum to lie at the initial claim stage because they will get counterclaimed.

3) Accordingly, any purported change in popularity ranking will have to be true

The fact that the changes would be caused by a power role (though, we don't know of what alignment) instinctively makes me think that such changes should not be changed. Reason being is that, as a general rule I think, a person would want to increase the ranking of somebody they consider pro-town (so as to give them more choice) and decrease the ranking of somebody they suspect (so as to reduce their ability to pick their scumbuddies and avoid exposure to the town); hence, claiming changes, (publicly, since people might well target somebody they think is likely town and tell them about the change) could out a PR. So, at this stage I don't think changes should be publicly claimed.

Regarding the bolded bit there, they wouldn't be able to. If we all said "target the person below you in the list" then anyone who didn't would be automatically pointed out as scum. They would basically be forced into neighboring with the person below them or being known as scum.

The problem is that saying "Target the person below you" or any other rigid formulation removes any ability of town to individually target and interrogate a particular player they suspect, or collaborate with somebody they think is town. Hence, we need to have a free choice; in which case, we need to claim those choices and (because reasons are always good) the reasons why.

I think most of us are in favor of this...so who wants to start? Andrius and then we can just popcorn from there, or go by the playerlist, or have everyone shout it out at once, doesn't really matter.

I can't see the point in popcorning this early in a game.

I'm ranked

fifth

in popularity.

[Friend]

Alright.

I'm ranked

eighth

in popularity.

[Andrius]

I was seriously quite surprised that nobody asked IK or myself why the hell we were still alive come D4.

That's why I knew you were scum. If I were you, I wouldn't have killed Raber, let alone anyone. Killing Raber made me lose another suspect, and I couldn't see lynx as scum with IK or you. So it had to be both of you.

1) Assuming that such a role could be used in passing period n and then the target has the new rank in passing period n + 1, then the biggest risk is simply that the person they speak to, if it is somsebody that they could not have spoken to before, will accuse them of having lied about their ranking.

2) However, we already know that it will be impossible for scum to lie at the initial claim stage because they will get counterclaimed.

3) Accordingly, any purported change in popularity ranking will have to be true

The role wouldn't come into effect until the next night then. Like, if I target you N1, your popularity wouldn't move until D2. It would have to be like a Miller claim- as soon as you can that is.

The fact that the changes would be caused by a power role (though, we don't know of what alignment) instinctively makes me think that such changes should not be changed. Reason being is that, as a general rule I think, a person would want to increase the ranking of somebody they consider pro-town (so as to give them more choice) and decrease the ranking of somebody they suspect (so as to reduce their ability to pick their scumbuddies and avoid exposure to the town); hence, claiming changes, (publicly, since people might well target somebody they think is likely town and tell them about the change) could out a PR. So, at this stage I don't think changes should be publicly claimed.

Oh so you're saying they shouldn't claim (assuming that such a power exists, of course). I don't see how this could out another PR.

I'm ranked

tenth

in popularity.

[Friend]

I don't think speculating about the possibility of popularity-changing roles does any good. If someone's popularity gets changed overnight, they need to say so.

[vollkan]

Oh so you're saying they shouldn't claim (assuming that such a power exists, of course). I don't see how this could out another PR.

I'm not rigidly against it in all cases, I should add.

For instance, I think claiming is probably appropriate where a player who is generally regarded as being likely town (ie. the player knows that a relatively high proportion of the other players think they are town) goes

down

in their ranking. Reason being that such a fall most likely indicates that scum are trying to cripple them a bit, so it could be a valid towntell for that player. Obviously, though, if that X is the player whose ranking goes down despite being regarded generally as town and X is heavily suspected by Y and Y is also town, then X probably shouldn't claim. Basically, it's probably a judgment call thing best left to the player whose ranking goes down.

I don't think speculating about the possibility of popularity-changing roles does any good. If someone's popularity gets changed overnight, they need to say so.

You don't think there is a risk of outing a PR?

[Friend]

Well, okay, let's say I get bumped up to 7th overnight. I'd say so, we'd change the rankings. I don't think it would necessarily out a PR - the person who did the changing would keep quiet and that would be that. I'd assume the role, if it even exists, could probably use the popularity-upper on himself, so the scum couldn't use PoE to figure it out either.

[Andrius]

I'm not rigidly against it in all cases, I should add.

For instance, I think claiming is probably appropriate where a player who is generally regarded as being likely town (ie. the player knows that a relatively high proportion of the other players think they are town) goes down in their ranking. Reason being that such a fall most likely indicates that scum are trying to cripple them a bit, so it could be a valid towntell for that player. Obviously, though, if that X is the player whose ranking goes down despite being regarded generally as town and X is heavily suspected by Y and Y is also town, then X probably shouldn't claim. Basically, it's probably a judgment call thing best left to the player whose ranking goes down.

Ok. It makes sense. It allows for alot of WIFOM, especially with a popularity lowerer.

[vollkan]

Well, okay, let's say I get bumped up to 7th overnight. I'd say so, we'd change the rankings. I don't think it would necessarily out a PR - the person who did the changing would keep quiet and that would be that. I'd assume the role, if it even exists, could probably use the popularity-upper on himself, so the scum couldn't use PoE to figure it out either.

You're missing the point.

Assume the PR is town. Scum will know this (because the PR will not be one of them). Scum see you get bumped up. It's trivially easy to then look at all players in ISO and then see who thought they were pro-town.

Of course, actually, you could do that ISO work yourself and work out a) who the player is (and not claim the change); or b) determine that there is nobody who clearly thought you pro-town (and claim the change).

So basically, I am

not

against claiming changes. I just think that it's something that has to be thought through carefully.

[Friend]

I understand your point, I suppose. Of course, this all assumes such a role exists - all of this could be useless.

[Scott Brosius]

Okay, I guess so.

I think once we get flips though, its going to be tough to remove the influence popularity from scum-hunting. I think it will be hard to ignore it completely.

What do you mean by this? Hopefully the popularity factor helps us scumhunt - why would you want to ignore it completely?

Not ignoring it, but distracted by looking for patterns in popularity when we get flips.

I am

third

in popularity.

[Tasky]

first, I'd like to bring up the good old IioA-point... we shouldn't worry so much abut the setup...nobody would be so stupid to fake a popularity change, that could so easily be verified, it would just out them as scum... so even if there are popularity-manipulating roles, I really don't see the problem...
and I really don't see the big power of such (hypothetical) manipulating roles you attribute them...

second, I am ranked

eleventh

in popularity

third, please don't talk about other games if they are not relevant to scumhunting in this game

Not ignoring it, but distracted by looking for patterns in popularity when we get flips.

it seems to me that you are saying that the additional information that could arise due to popularity is bad... how can more info be bad?

_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_

this is the current popularity list (hope I didn't miss anybody):
1. ??
2. ??
3. Scott Brosius
4. ??
5. vollkan
6. ??
7. ??
8. Friend
9. ??
10. Andrius
11. Tasky
12. ??

[Friend]

I don't like how Tasky brings up IIoA and then posts a handful of IIoA. It's hypocritical.

[Andrius]

third, please don't talk about other games if they are not relevant to scumhunting in this game

I only mentioned it because it is very similar to this game, in a way. But I will refrain from saying anything rule-breaking.

And I'm feeling an Andy/Tasky neighborhood tonight, unless #12 is cooler than you.

pre-post edit: *looking up wht IIoA is*