Mini Game 23 - GAME OVER - Mafia Win

MeMe · Post Post #50 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:11 am

jeep wrote:OK, can I get an official vote count? There has been a lot of vote switching.

OK,

unofficially

:
mneme (3) - CurtainDog, Doomcow, Green Crayons
jeep (2) - MeMe, casinopete
Green Crayons (1) - mneme
CurtainDog (1) - jeep
Gaspode (1) - ExDeath
The Don (1) - Gaspode
Not voting: eillid, The Don

jeep wrote:I am a little concerned about the game. "thought he was a cop" seems to indicate he was a "random" cop. I'm a firm believer that a random cop has no place in the game of mafia, but it looks like we have at least one. If you havea role, be certain that your role is true before getting someone killed.

Just found this curious. I wonder if it could be interpreted "if you're a cop and investigated me, don't kill me because you got a result of 'mafia.'" Seems possible that it was designed to scare a cop off a scum result and buy an extra day.

eillid · Post Post #51 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 8:28 am

It could be interpreted that way, or it could be interpreted as "If you're a cop, make sure you're sane before you try to kill someone." Good guys should not be lynching good guys if they can help it, and coming out as cop if you found two mafia members and then dying when the first ends up being innocent because you're insane really would suck. We'd lose the first innocent and the cop (who could still be useful if he gets opposite results).

MeMe · Post Post #52 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:00 am

eillid, what would

you

suggest a cop do in this particular game when he "finds" scum? Your interpretation of jeep's post (which is really less an interpretation than a paraphrase, it seems) renders a cop completely useless by suggesting that it's not a good idea for him to reveal himself until one of his investigations dies overnight or by a lynch in which he isn't involved.

Say, for example, I'm a cop of unknown sanity and I got a result of "so & so is scum." Do I sit on that until so & so dies and is revealed as scum/non-scum? From so & so's viewpoint - OF COURSE, DON'T TELL ANYONE! But from everyone else's viewpoint??

eillid · Post Post #53 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 11:35 am

The cop should be careful about coming out as a cop, because he might not be a sane one. If he found a bad guy, he could vote for that person and try to convince people to vote with him, but if that doesn't work, he shouldn't say "Hey! I'm a cop! Kill him!"

Gaspode · Post Post #54 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 11:41 am

This is just a post to say I'm here, and I don't know who to vote for yet but don't want you all killing me for being silent. Anyway, do we know that CB's role was random, or are we just assuming?

The Don · Post Post #55 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 12:13 pm

VOTE: Jeep

This is a bandwaggon I can enjoy...

jeep · Post Post #56 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 1:18 pm

It could be interpreted that way, or it could be interpreted as "If you're a cop, make sure you're sane before you try to kill someone."

Which is almost correct. Actually, it also means, if you are a cop and you find an innocent, don't defend that person TOO much, because they might be guilty and you'd likely turn up dead.

Also, you don't need someone you found as scum to be lynched, if someone you found innocent is lynched, then you can eliminate a few sanities.

Here are the typical sanities:
SANE: finds bad guys as bad, and good guys as good
INSANE: finds opposite results
PARANOID: finds everyone as bad
NAIVE: finds everyone good
RANDOM: gets random result. IMO, it has NO PLACE in most mafia games.

I suspect that there are no true townies who know they are townies. I think we were all given a role, but some of us get our night actions to take place as they should and others don't. So some "docs" won't really protect their target. Some cops won't really get infomrmation about their target. We have to figure out who the real cops are. I think that is very difficult, esp. in a mini-game.

-JEEP

mneme · Post Post #57 (ISO) » Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:07 pm

We -should- be past the deadline, but since we don't seem to be, (and, since I'm townie and therefore the chance of anyone -else- being mafia is greater than that of me being mafia), I might as well:

unvote: Green Crayons
vote: jeep
FOS: Green Crayons

Soothsayer · Post Post #58 (ISO) » Thu Jan 30, 2003 2:16 am

deadline has now been reached - update to follow....

Soothsayer · Post Post #59 (ISO) » Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:48 am

As the sun sets, everyone looks at Jeep in a menacing way.

As quick as a flash a noose was placed around his neck and despite his please of innocense and being a cop he was killed.

On closer examination a police shield was found on his body - however when it was noticed that this was made out of cheap aluminium foil his true role was revealed.

Jeep - incompetant cop has been killed

It is now night - PMs please - deadline Friday 5pm UK time.

Soothsayer · Post Post #60 (ISO) » Sun Feb 02, 2003 9:35 pm

Just as night follows day - in this town death also follows it.

Unfortunately this time it was poor MeMe who didn't wake up. It looks as though he has been the unlucky recipient of a mafia hit.

MeMe was a paranoid cop (everyone was guilty)

It is now day - please vote - deadline Friday 7 Feb - 3pm UK time

MeMe · Post Post #61 (ISO) » Mon Feb 03, 2003 3:41 am

Green Crayons · Post Post #62 (ISO) » Mon Feb 03, 2003 10:24 am

Well, i have no reason to change my vote from yesterday.

Vote: mneme

. Adding to the fact of his lost-puppy syndrome, is that he was the last to vote for Jeep. Not that there's much in that, but it's just something else to add to my lists of suspicion. If anyone else, of course, has better suggestions, i'm all ears.

CurtainDog · Post Post #63 (ISO) » Mon Feb 03, 2003 7:59 pm

Still not much to go on, I think we may be missing a few pieces of the puzzle...

In particular, I'm very perplexed by the jeep bandwagon:
mneme I can understand because it was either jeep or him, although that could indicate either town or mafia.
MeMe didn't give a reason but ended up dead anyway.
casinopete voted in order to prod but left it there even when jeep spoke up. Maybe there was some OMGUS in that...
and The Don's reason was that he could enjoy that bandwagon.

Is this suspicious or just confusing? (I suppose two of them were on my suspects list from before so maybe i'm reading too much into this)

If I had to vote anyone at this stage it would be eillid, but I think I'll take a leaf out of her book and see what comes up before I cast a vote. (there you go: a post without a vote)

mneme · Post Post #64 (ISO) » Mon Feb 03, 2003 9:16 pm

At the moment, if I had to guess, I'd finger Casiopete and Green Crayons as our scum:

Casiopete:

They split votes, each voting for one of the bandwagon: 3 people yesterday.
On the "who has a motive" question, MeMe had only voted for Casiopete and Jeep (and Jeep was already dead). And Casiopete had come in as a "joke" as the third person on MeMe's bandwagon before shamed out of it.
Casiopete's voting habits -- he was the third perosn on a vote several times, and seemed to be willing to bandwagon almost anyone.

Green Crayons:

Appears to be scapegoating today, rather than actually trying to find consensus as is usually a better town strategy. Which has some theoretical chance of working, if he can maintain my bandwagon from yesterday, thus leading the town in circles (as Mafia are wont to do, when they can).
Seemed to have started scapegoating me from the second time I ended up with the same vote he did -- this -appears- to be (to me) to be him being afraid of being hit with a (false) alpha/beta mafia rap (ie, where a weaker mafia member follows around a more experienced one, ending up fingering both himself and the more experienced mafioso); this seems a much more likely fear if he actually -is- mafia, esepecially since my explainations were both true and lucid on the subject (and of the two, one was a clear standoff, not provoked by me, with CurtainDog).
Note that it's also possible that he's another paranoid cop (or other inaccurate one), who has latched onto me as the only "guilty" person he's found.

Of the rest:

I haven't gotten a real feel for Doomcow or Gaspode, but they feel like Town so far.

Similar for Curtaindog and ExDeath.

The Don's bandwagonning of Jeep toward the end of yesterday is somewhat suspicious -- why was that a bandwagon you could enjoy, again? Not that, given that it saved my life, I can complain too much...but I could wish we'd hung someone a little less random; there were clearly better suspects than Jeep yesterday, IMO.

And Ellid's combination of experience and survival, as well as his holding back and not voting at all yesterday does strike me as suspicious -- I haven't played with him before, so this may be his normal pattern, but it does strike me as incongruent, and if we had a third Mafia, I'd -guess- it at Ellid, though it's still pretty slim.

In any case, the evidence does seem to point more toward Casiopete than Green Crayons [despite my dislike of GC's behavior this game], so I'll have to:

Vote: Casiopete
FOS: Green Crayons

The Don · Post Post #65 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 2:24 am

Jeeeez...are you a cop IRL???

I don't put that much brain behind this. I realy don't have any "good" reason for the vote I made. Just ran with the flow at the moment. I need to take a nap now and ponder your points. Will vote later.

casinopete · Post Post #66 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 5:15 am

God, I hope he's not a cop in real life.

mneme wrote:They split votes, each voting for one of the bandwagon: 3 people yesterday.

Unless I completely misunderstand what you're saying, this means CurtainDog, Doomcow, GreenCrayons, MeMe, myself, and The Don are all mafia. I'm not quite sure this is valid logic.

mneme wrote:On the "who has a motive" question, MeMe had only voted for Casiopete and Jeep (and Jeep was already dead). And Casiopete had come in as a "joke" as the third person on MeMe's bandwagon before shamed out of it.

MeMe had said: "And I'm sure that my mini-bandwagon will disappear as soon as Doomcow & ExDeath realize they left the "n" out of "mneme."

then I said: "whoops. I seem to have put an extra 'n' in MeMe.

UnVote: mneme

;

Vote: MeMe

"

Do you seriously not see the "joke"?? And being "shamed out of it"?? It was a joke. Of course I didn't keep it in place. Are you daft?

mneme wrote:Casiopete's voting habits -- he was the third perosn on a vote several times, and seemed to be willing to bandwagon almost anyone.

For a "third vote" to have any meaning, it cannot involve unVoting it before any further discussion takes place. In both the cases of MeMe (joke) and eillid (admitted error), I unVoted before anything else happened. Hence, only my vote on Jeep was really a "third vote" in any meaningful way.

And as for my vote on Jeep, it was initially to prod. I was going to unVote when he spoke up, until he Voted for me based on my being "too free with the votes" after I'd

already explained

each of my votes.

Speaking of which, I've

already explained

each of my votes. This makes a third time.

mneme wrote: In any case, the evidence does seem to point more toward Casiopete than Green Crayons [despite my dislike of GC's behavior this game], so I'll have to:
Vote: Casiopete

Your evidence on me is 1) an accusation of six people, not just me; 2) doubting that my joke was a joke, when anyone can read for themselves and see that it was a joke; 3) hyperbole about my voting habits

Of course, your accusations of Green Crayons are also illogical, so out of your two illogical attacks, perhaps the one directed at me is a tiny bit less fallacious.

Vote: mneme

for awful reasoning.

eillid · Post Post #67 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 11:30 am

CurtainDog: Huh? "List of stuff people have done, not mentioning eillid at all. But if I'd vote anyone, it'd be eillid"? Why's that?

Green Crayons · Post Post #68 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 11:42 am

Appears to be scapegoating today, rather than actually trying to find consensus as is usually a better town strategy.

"..Scapegoating today." ... Oh, okay. I see: Whenever i have a suspicion about someone, and then vote for them day one, i'm no longer to keep up those suspicions on day two? Because

that's

scapegoating, obviously.

Seemed to have started scapegoating me from the second time I ended up with the same vote he did

Very good, i'm glad to see you can follow the timing of my explinations for my voting you. Then again, i think most people just figured this out once you followed my vote around for the second time (i would hardly call that just "ending up with the same vote."), and i turned around and voted you.

I voted for you because you random vote me, follow two of my votes, then vote me once more. - That's not quite ordinary, and was suspicious enough for me to vote you day one, and now. - Then, once i vote you, you used loaded wording to try and skew my credibility. Nowhere did i say that i was keeping my vote towards you in stone for day two, but your big speal has only raised my suspicions towards you, namely because of how off it is.

eillid · Post Post #69 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 11:44 am

Not sure who seems suspicious, but I don't like mneme's logic. And I thought that against GC was better than that against casinopete, although still not good enough to make me vote with it. The only thing that makes me think they aren't connected is GC's vote for her. I'm not sure if that's a real vote (voting for a suspected unknown), a distance vote (they're connected but don't want to seem so. Not a dangerous vote. A lynch isn't expected or wanted), or a fixed vote (GC won't change his vote and might try to get people onto the bandwagon, possibly without seeming like he's trying, but will want to appear flexible).

Appears to be scapegoating today, rather than actually trying to find consensus as is usually a better town strategy.

What does that mean, mneme? GC looked to be voting for you because you seemed most suspicious to him, and then said

If anyone else, of course, has better suggestions, i'm all ears.

Unless that was just for show (I've had some unusually fixed "wavering vote"s before), it didn't seem like "scapegoating" to me. It looked like normal game behaviour.

mneme · Post Post #70 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 12:20 pm

It is, of course, possible, that everything CP and GC have said was accurate. (just like it's possible that my explainations on day one for my various votes were dirty lies). But just looing at various other patterns...

The reason I characterized GC's vote as scapegoating was that it was the first vote of the day, contained no new information [um...given my failure to start a bandwagon yesterday, I -suspect- as Mafia I'd have argued for killing a non-mafia GC...(though I could have been outvoted in that situation) -- our feud from yeterday feels like it would be more harm to continue than a straight kill would have been], and as a vote for someone who had had a bandwagon the previous day, had/has a potential to result in a quick day and a quick kill, with very little risk (ie, if it fails to result in a bandwagon, he can just shift to whatever else is going on). Additionally, he's not even dignifed my explaination (at the time and afterward) of my Day 1 voting pattern with a remark; which may just be player style, but.... Obviously, a thin thread...but then, they're all thin at this point, unless one is a cop (and with the preponderance of fake cops, a cop sighting is still pretty thin).

Casiopete was basially straight vote analsis from yesterday combined with the choice of victim,, and is therefore suspect (among other things, mafia can chart votes too), but seemed better than my arguments against Green Crayons (which smack a bit too much, for my taste, of "he voted for me, so I'm going to vote for him, despite a reasonable soundness to parts of them). But his voting pattern was even more suspicious yesterday (smacking too much of someone courting an "oops, someone bandwaggoned my 'accidental' third vote and we got a quick lynch" for my taste -- I mean, he was the third vote on what, 3 different people?)

Casiopete: I don't doubt your joke was a joke...and it was certainly funny (to everyone except meme, that is). But something can be a a joke or a likely mistake, and still...interesting.

Oh, and to finish my followup -- having checked a lot of posting history, ellid seems to frequiently play like this (posting often, voting rarely), so there's little reason to believe ellid is scum aside from ellid's survival, which is clearly not enough.

What's a good time to reveal your role (since based on the current evidence everyone has a "role" even if many of them don't work) defensively? When you have 4 votes against?

eillid · Post Post #71 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 12:29 pm

I'd say when you're in danger of being lynched, but there's still time to save yourself (although if there's no time, might as well give the town your results, eh? Just in case your role is in any way helpful after death). Otherwise, if you've found a bad guy and think you might be killed off before you can tell, you could come out as cop and get saved at night (unless you're insane, in which case you're probably the next to be lynched).

ExDeath · Post Post #72 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 6:21 pm

Just curious eillid, what leads you to believe this scenario even has any doctor roles? So far all we've seen are a bunch of really bad cops. Taking this into account, I'm not sure if it would be better for a cop to come out with their information or just sit on it. Clearly sitting on bad information is (usually) no more productive than coming out with it, but, opinions?

And for now I'm switching my FOS/vote to

FOS: Gaspode

vote: Green Crayons

CurtainDog · Post Post #73 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 8:07 pm

Eillid -
I am suspicious of you because you are not giving me anything to judge you on. Even when I give you the 'heads up' about my suspicions you give a one line reply which just poses more questions... Mneme attempts to defend you by citing your style of play, but while there may be little reason to believe you're scum, there's little reason to believe you're town either. I just don't think 'this is the way I always play' is an adequate defense.

But to be fair, your more recent posts have been quite informative so I consider the prod successful.

And for what its worth - I think that the other's (don, mneme, casino) suspicious behaviour is due to being confused about what to do (I can empathise with them), I am thinking your behaviour is a lot more planned. I guess time will tell...

All-
In any case I think before we get hung up on voting for eachother (*cough* Green & casino) we should invite gassy and doom to say a few words. It would be harsh of me to come down on eillid for not voting while others haven't spoken in a week.

eillid · Post Post #74 (ISO) » Tue Feb 04, 2003 8:50 pm

Just curious eillid, what leads you to believe this scenario even has any doctor roles?

I've assumed it. It's a hard enough game when no cop can be sure he's sane that, unless we have a reduced sized mafia or something, I can't imagine that we'd be given no doctor.
If a cop can be sure of his sanity and has found a mafia member or two, we wouldn't want him to die without (at least) pointing to someone as being suspicious. Especially since we get to find out the sanity after a cop's dead.

I am suspicious of you because you are not giving me anything to judge you on. Even when I give you the 'heads up' about my suspicions you give a one line reply which just poses more questions...

I can't defend myself if I don't know what I've done to appear suspicious. I asked specifically why you'd vote me if you'd vote anyone. If it's just that I haven't voted... that's a little silly. It is my style. That might not make me unsuspicious, but I can't imagine why behaving the way I usually behave makes me the most suspicious of anyone in the game. If you don't think that "this is the way I always play" is a good defence (against... something), then give me something to defend against. I'm not waving my shield around when the opponent hasn't even drawn his sword.

I think that the other's (don, mneme, casino) suspicious behaviour is due to being confused about what to do [...] I am thinking your behaviour is a lot more planned.

I agree, to a point. About mneme, anyway (casinopete seems to be experienced enough. I'd imagine he knows what he's doing, especially seeing him in MSM8. And I have no clue about the don). I don't like her logic much, but it does (mostly. I have been very suspicious of her at points) seem to be pro-town floundering sort of stuff. And my behaviour is "planned"? I do think about what I'm going to say, and possibly have a different angle, but I imagine that's mostly because I'm more experienced and have played more games than most of you have. I'd still like if you could point out where I've been acting suspiciously (preferably something concrete, but if it's just "vague feelings", say that. Then other people can say "Oh, yeah. Me too" or "I need more than that").