Mini 408 - EXiLE Mafia, MOD ABANDONED

[Maz Medias]

I want to note that an increase in randomness always helps the larger force.

[Raging Rabbit]

I want to note that an increase in randomness always helps the larger force.

Wrong. Just look at the odds for a town win in "back 2 basic" mafia. They're in the wiki. Town basically has like a 38% chance of winning in a 3 mafia/17 townies setting.

Also, the best Chess player in the world would beat the worst one more consitently then the best and worst Poker players (though I'm now talking about

quality

, not quantity).

[Romanus]

[egotrip]Also, Romanus (and Ghyrt?), if you wanna flame me further and argue off-play points, I'd advise you to take a look at the RR General Discussion thread. [/egotrip]

[Raging Rabbit]

Romanus, you're trying to get back at me for something I never intended to do. Wanna discuss my "insulting" style? That has nothing to do with this game in particular, so go to the discussion thread. Wanna play mafia? Stop attacking my personality, I never intended to attack yours.

If you, or anyone else, want to comment on how I can make myself more readable, though, I'd very much appreciate that.

[Maz Medias]

I want to note that an increase in randomness always helps the larger force.

Wrong. Just look at the odds for a town win in "back 2 basic" mafia. They're in the wiki. Town basically has like a 38% chance of winning in a 3 mafia/17 townies setting.

Also, the best Chess player in the world would beat the worst one more consitently then the best and worst Poker players (though I'm now talking about

quality

, not quantity).

That's full randomness, and in lynches. I was citing a rule that states that an increase in randomness favors the larger force because the larger force gains more chances at a good result.

By this I mean that allowing the townies to simply nominate who they want to vote for, we're making it much more difficult for mafia meddlings to occur.

[Raging Rabbit]

Could you link to that rule, please, so we could all judge how relevant it is here?

[Skruffs]

Law of Entropy, mebbe? Causality? Ennui? I don't know myself.
I think MAz is sayign what Romanus was sayign and I aws echoing as well;

if mafia doesn't know what plans to mess up, they'll have to devise their own.

[DeanWinchester]

Ok I don't care how it comes up/ happens/ evolves into, I'm sick of coming back everyday to like a page's worth about RR's play style. I don't mind his style or anyone that takes offense to it, but can we stop getting into redundant arguments about it.

Huge

FOS: Jdodge, cheesefan, romanus

This blatant not going to work with any ideal the town comes up with is really scumie. I understand your points for keeping stuff secret, BUT I THINK IT IS A VERY BAD IDEAL. I think we need to publickly work together to figure out who is mafia, being open will help us achieve this. yes the mafia could exploit this, but I believe that the bennifit to the town out ways the risk.

Our nomination plan needs to have three canidates, with just two the mafia can kill one and collectively vote to put somone else up. With three we open the possibility of hitting mafia and putting pressure on the mafia. Plus if the mafia kills one we will still at least have two scumie suspects left. Any townie who becomes a nominee should agree to do this because goin agianst it will only draw suspicion away from those that are actually mafia.

Im a townie, but if you want to put me and jack up and someone else I'll agree to do it, because A) I think jack really is scum B) If the other one is ghryt even better C) I do believe it would be in the towns best interest to put up who they really believe is scum.

It would be nice if there was some discussion on who to lynch for today.

[Raging Rabbit]

I think MAz is sayign what Romanus was sayign and I aws echoing as well;
if mafia doesn't know what plans to mess up, they'll have to devise their own.

Didn't you just say you support the 3 nominee system? 'Cause Romanus certainly doesn't, and I really don't think MM does either.

Since you're the one who complained, could you please tell me how to correct my ways - how should I phrase my posts (quote-wise)?

Ok I don't care how it comes up/ happens/ evolves into, I'm sick of coming back everyday to like a page's worth about RR's play style. I don't mind his style or anyone that takes offense to it, but can we stop getting into redundant arguments about it.

I totally understand your annoyance, but I

do

mind people who find me insulting. I personally don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, just to be able to take things a little lightly without insulting anyone.

The rest of DW's post is pure truth, and I especially like -

Im a townie, but if you want to put me and jack up and someone else I'll agree to do it

(jokejokejokenooffensecheers)

[Cheesefan]

I know see why RR pisses everyone off.

As for the open nominations, its a dead point now, at least four people now disagree with it so it will not work.

[Cheesefan]

Also i can see us now splitting into camps over this thing.

That is baaaaaaaaaaaad.

[JDodge]

Also i can see us now splitting into camps over this thing.

That is baaaaaaaaaaaad.

Yep. I can also see someone getting lynched because they don't agree on a nominating procedure that everyone else lays down, so they "must be scum".

[Raging Rabbit]

I know see why RR pisses everyone off.

Don't you love me anymore??

Yep. I can also see someone getting lynched because they don't agree on a nominating procedure that everyone else lays down, so they "must be scum".

Nope, just not too pro town-ish. Look, we need to think this thing over and decide on the town's best course of action. Forcing us into anarchy just because you "won't have it any other way", since you won't give up your "freedom" or somethin', is not particularly helpful.

[Cheesefan]

I still love you in some games, in this game however your getting my back up.

[Raging Rabbit]

1. Love is not limited to one game, you either do or don't mr. Poetic Scottsman.
2. Is it because I want to take away your "freedom" to nominate whoever you choose?

[Cheesefan]

1. I will distribute my love how i like.

2. Itsl ess about freedom, more about fuckupabiliy.

Im not gonna tell the scum what im doing before i do it.

And it gives the scum a pre emptive chance at a mislynch

[Romanus]

Our nomination plan needs to have three canidates, with just two the mafia can kill one and collectively vote to put somone else up. With three we open the possibility of hitting mafia and putting pressure on the mafia. Plus if the mafia kills one we will still at least have two scumie suspects left.

You are saying this as if the scum won't know who we are nominating. They are not going to make our job easier. They are going to know if any of our nominations are scum or not, and therefore can act accordingly. We, the town, in general, don't know, for sure, about anyone.

Let me make this as simple as possible:
The more the scum know, the more they can eff things up. The same reason you don't tell the Doc, or vig, or sheriff, etc what to do. Why, because it gives the scum an edge.

I mean, think about when anyone played and they were scum. What did you spend most of the time in the night talking about. Who is going to do what to who. Who might be this, who might be that. Who is best to take out, who best to leave in. If we give them our nominees on a platter, then all they have to think about is if one of them is in danger, whether to bus them, to kill someone outside the nominations for that night.

I believe that we make life a lot easier for scum if we just tell them our plans ahead of time.

I further believe that we should, in our first posts of the morning, announce who we nominated. This may force the scum to lie, which could put them in a pickle, or they tell the truth, and it may make them look bad.

[Skruffs]

Damn, lost my post while constructing that neat little thing at hte bottom of this one. Let's try again.

How about instead of splitting into camps, we compromise?
Compromise. We all have two votes. Let's use one together, and one randomly. That's right. We nominate one person with half our votes, and we all quietly, privately decide what to do with our other vote. Not everyone would have to do this; 5 people will most likely be a majority. With our other vote, we nominate who else we want to see up there. THAt way we have one pre planned nominee, and a second placer down by secret, popular vote. If mafia want to kill the person we have decided to nominate, than it's all the more possible one of them will be nominated.

Maybe this is a flawed Idea, but I Think it's a step forward from either of the other ideas.

Second note, I akinda side with Romanus about revealing votes in the morning. I have been changing opinions a lot as more and more thoughts are added to the mix; kudos to everyone who is participating.

Whatever happens, this game is going to have a truckload of WIFOM.



Hmmmmmmmmmm.

A'ight, please show me what makes "anarchy" less easily corrupted than my plan.

Guys, please try to think this through here. By "random" I didn't mean meaningless, I meant "anarchy". We have no idea how easy we make life for the mafia, or how much they'll be able to fuck us up. It leaves too much to pure luck, basically.

My method, however, pretty much guarantees that

we get at least 2 out of our 3 most suspicious people up for lynching tomorrow.

And by choosing which of our 3 suspects to remove as an option, the mafia's basically giving us more free information. That's better than anarchy in my book. Yay institutions!

1. Paranoid, much? Let the town judge what's good and what's not for ourselves rather than shout "SABOTAGE!"
2. "Anarchy" is just as much a chosen system as mine is, only more intuitive. Can't it also be set into place by evil anti town culprits?

Nope, just not too pro town-ish. Look, we need to think this thing over and decide on the town's best course of action. Forcing us into anarchy just because you "won't have it any other way", since you won't give up your "freedom" or somethin', is not particularly helpful.

"Anarchy" isn't purely random, true. It's (way)

more

random than what I'm trying to propose, though, and randomness is a big no no.

Lastly Mr. Big Bunny, you put those words in my mouth. All I said was that town would have to agree on WHO they were nominating. That's the third time you are inferring that I Agree with your plan - for the record, your plan is not a bad one. But everyone has to be involved or it will be chaos.

[Raging Rabbit]

All I said was that town would have to agree on WHO they were nominating.

How is this different from what I said?


I personally believe my plan is the best course of action. Disagree to the point you don't even want to debate? Sure. Do whatever you want. Do try to understand the advantages of what I'm suggesting first, though.

[Romanus]

It has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found to be lacking.

[Raging Rabbit]

I'll expalin my thinking one more time, and if people still disagree I'll give up. Please try to consider my idea, though.

Option 1 - Anarchy

- each townie votes for whichever two guys he considers the most suspicious.

Town nominations - mostly spread over the few most suspicous people, but quite a few get wasted on the guy only this one townie wants to lynch.

Mafia nominations - perfectly coordinated to get whoever they want nominated. The mafia has no knowledge on the town's exact nominations, but can guess well enough to have a good chance of getting the wrong person nominated.

Option 2 - Administration

- town decides on the 3

consensually

most suspicious guys to nominate a day in advance.

Town nominations - all go on the same 3 people, and said people will

always

be up for a lynch unless one gets NK'd (which still leaves 2 with decreased chance to lynch an innocent).

Mafia - since they can't change any of the 3 predetermined people (8-7-7 balance with only 3 mafia max), they're pretty much powerless. They have more information on what the town's gonna do, but that doens't help them fuck up the nominees at all.

[Skruffs]

You're forgetting what "Consensual' means.

Okay. Well, I'm willing to give this a go, ie nominating. Nobody can be held to it, and of course the mafia has two/three people backing each other up whereas we are all fending for each other.

I don't care who gets nominated, but I'd prefer to see Dawg, Romanus, and cheesefan off the lynching block tommorrow.

I wasn't really suspicious of jack until he went off after I posted the chart, b dean/jack/ghyrt works for me

[JDodge]

Let me give my interpretation:

Option 1 - Freedom

- each townie votes for whichever two guys he considers the most suspicious.

Town nominations - Only placed on those whom people themselves feel are scummy.

Mafia nominations - No way of coordinating who's on the block.

Option 2 - Government

- town decides on the 3 most suspicious guys as determined by whomever can talk the loudest to nominate a day in advance.

Town nominations - All go on the same 3 people, and said people will

always

be up for a lynch unless one gets NK'd (which still leaves 2 with chance to lynch an innocent based on who is right in the predetermination).

Mafia - Can help manipulate the nominations in a different way, by tricking the town into choosing the wrong three people.

[JDodge]

Whoops. Hit submit before I was finished.

The way I look at it, 1 is true democracy. 2 is tyranny-by-majority.

[Cheesefan]

Jdodge gets some townie points