Day Three -- Monster Manual Mafia

[Eileen Dover]

@The Gazebo - no need to feel bad, that's basically what I'm doing, too. I'm not going to ask you to explain why you think certain posts are towny/scummy as that could amount to giving scum clues about what to say/not to say. And I'm not going to vote you at this stage as that would amount to omgus, which I don't think is helpful. Having said that, I'm not convinced voting for so many people is helpful either, nor does it give us much of a clue about your own towniness. As far as I can see, we only have your and Owlbear's word for you being a monster, which while better than your word alone, is not yet 'confirmed town' in my book, due to the obfuscation involved in the way Owlbear received the message. In other words, given the game setup, I don't think we can necessarily place as much trust in the message as a game in which a detective investigates someone and receives a message back that their target is town.

In summary, my concern is that "voting for several people to see what sticks" could be a scum tactic. I'm aware I have votes open on several players but I've explained my reasoning and (obviously) I don't think I'm doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

@Eileen Dover
#78: I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything to respond to. I thought Owlbear was scummy at the time, and I wanted to see how others responded to it. At the time I deferred, I didn't have time to make a case or contribute to the discussion, and I didn't want to have a vote on someone that I didn't have a strong reason against if I would not be able to show up and participate in full. However, I did want to share where my thoughts were, and a vote against Owlbear without more than just "gut feeling" was not helpful to anyone. In my opinion, casting a vote with little reasoning and then ghosting is anti-monster if not outright scummy. Not having a vote cast against Owlbear on record isn't super helpful to "hide behind" if my words of suspicion are on record for all to see.

#79: I see you are against the mass claim, so is this question directed at me in particular? Or just town in general? I maintain that a mass claim is a good way to catch a hero in a lie, and that if we are to do it, today may be our last chance because of our lack of hero deaths and the ratio at which we started may mean that, depending on power usage, tonight ends the game in the heroes favor. I don't want that, and I am advocating for what I think is a pro-town action.

#81 Let me clarify what I meant in #71 At the time, I thought that Owlbear was stating that modkilling Kali would be bad because we would have a better chance of lynching a fellow monster. Not a second modkill, like he was saying. It was a couple of misunderstandings; the first on Owlbear's part concerning the rules, and the second on my part for not understanding what Owlbear was worried about. As for the rest of what your paragraph concerning me: what would you like answered specifically? You do a lot more talking about me than asking questions of me, so are your questions regarding me more for town, or for me to answer?

Colouring of votes in quote removed to avoid double-counting - though I assume no need to do this?

Thanks for responding. Most of my questions are for anyone to answer, it just so happened that a couple were for you directly, and your post seems like a reasonable explanation of those, to me.



My other questions from the posts Alan has helpfully linked remain open to anyone to discuss.

[Eileen Dover]

I believe the current vote count does not reflect my unvote of Gelatinous Cube in post #195.

[Bahamut]

#78 I don't see anything that especially needs my input. I believe Alan_Tudyk is only waiting for the right time to make us curse his sudden but inevitable betrayal.

#79 you and I are basically in agreement, especially since we still don't know who F_I's master is. I claimed because just giving my information wasn't helping matters. But the idea is that getting everyone's cards out on the table will create more options for the Heroes to slip up in their role claims. This is...not a safe assumption in this game.

#81 I'm pretty sure the "wine" in question is the "Wine in Front of Me" for the heroes; which glass is poisoned?

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Bahamut

I believe Alan_Tudyk is only waiting for the right time to make us curse his sudden but inevitable betrayal.

I have been waiting literally all game for an opportunity to use that joke, and then someone beats me to it.

[Eileen Dover]

Thanks for the response.

Originally Posted by Bahamut

#81 I'm pretty sure the "wine" in question is the "Wine in Front of Me" for the heroes; which glass is poisoned?

Ah, a Princess Bride reference? I have to confess I only got around to watching it for the first time the other day (inconceivable! I hear you cry). I still don't really get why GC felt he was posting something that might make a Hero slip up. Anyway, it's probably not really important.

Still waiting to hear from @Ogre Jelly and @Mordenkainen - I won't be online near end of Day, so if neither has posted in the next 12-16 hours or so, I'll try to look back and see if I can identify anything that pings my scumdar - I'm not that keen on voting for both, that was supposed to jolt them into action rather than me necessarily thinking they are a Hero.

[PurpleWorm]

Originally Posted by The Gazebo

Well, at least I now know which side my primary suspect was on. Sadly, that doesn't inspire me with confidence regarding my other picks.

I'm in favor of the mass claim. Not because I believe it will reveal something game-solving, but because it will require everyone to provide some information, and some of that information will be false. If nothing else, low-volume posters will be pressured to say something.

I feel like we have little time for error, and even less for shyness. Let's make the bold move.

Gazebo, You've given us very little today: 5 posts and a bunch of naked votes. No information and very little opinion or help.

[Eileen Dover]

Reviewing the vote record, I see Mad Mage is yet to vote toDay, he has posted a few times and so seems to be playing more than Mordenkainen or Ogre Jelly, but hasn't contributed a great deal of analysis. Therefore,



on the same basis.

[Bahamut]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

I have been waiting literally all game for an opportunity to use that joke, and then someone beats me to it.

There's still at least one other that I promise to leave just for you.

[Owlbear]

For low participation:







Ogre Jelly is at the top of Illithid's list. With him/her not posting the whole Claim idea has stalled.

[Mordenkainen]

Originally Posted by PurpleWorm

Vote Mordenkainen
Only two posts and both about people miscounting?

Those are contributions I can make en passant while digesting the thread.

My playstyle has pretty much always involved digesting the Day's info and posting substantively in the last 24 - 48 hours; eg Days one and two. Your vote is for my playstyle, not my side. Unless, of course, you're a Hero trying to bandwagon someone not on your side.

This is the third vote on me Today. Remember that if I turn up dead.

[Mordenkainen]

Originally Posted by Onna Role

vote Modenkainen
Because of the vote shift shenanigans yesterDay .
and as noted above 'calling it in'

What shenanigans? Please explain how my one vote that did not change all Day constitutes "vote shift shenanigans."



For false accusations.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by The Gazebo

I'm finding it easier to try to think of who I see as posting and thinking in a townish way, and then just voting everyone who doesn't meet those criteria:















I'm probably going to need to revise this later, I feel almost bad about voting Eileen Dover because she's new.

I find this kind of vote infuriating because there is no comeback for those you voted for, you are also the third person to do it, did you discuss this in the scum thread?

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Mordenkainen

Those are contributions I can make en passant while digesting the thread.

My playstyle has pretty much always involved digesting the Day's info and posting substantively in the last 24 - 48 hours; eg Days one and two. Your vote is for my playstyle, not my side. Unless, of course, you're a Hero trying to bandwagon someone not on your side.

This is the third vote on me Today. Remember that if I turn up dead.

It depends on what you call substantive, but based on what I read of your D1, I'd say that looks demonstrably false.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Eileen Dover

Reviewing the vote record, I see Mad Mage is yet to vote toDay, he has posted a few times and so seems to be playing more than Mordenkainen or Ogre Jelly, but hasn't contributed a great deal of analysis. Therefore,



on the same basis.

I don't often vote quickly and I am not a fan of multivotes, I find multivoting takes away a lot of responsibility for a vote, I own my votes and I know I have been so wrong so far.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

It depends on what you call substantive, but based on what I read of your D1, I'd say that looks demonstrably false.

Correction: I took Mord's claim and search Mad Mage. I am an idiot.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

It depends on what you call substantive, but based on what I read of your D1, I'd say that looks demonstrably false.

I was curious about the underlining bit, hoping you would point me to something substantial but it didn't.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Mordenkainen

What shenanigans? Please explain how my one vote that did not change all Day constitutes "vote shift shenanigans."



For false accusations.

I asked about that earlier but I haven't had an answer yet from Onna Role, surprisingly I found that you have voted the same way I have and there were no shenanigans.

[Alan_Tudyk]

Originally Posted by Mad Mage

I was curious about the underlining bit, hoping you would point me to something substantial but it didn't.

It's a link to your D1 posts. It was of import only in the fantasy realm where you and Mordenkainen are actually the same person.

[Mordenkainen]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

It depends on what you call substantive, but based on what I read of your D1, I'd say that looks demonstrably false.

I'm afraid the link is invalid. Search terms expire.

Maybe linking to some of the posts would be a good idea?

Now excuse me while I play catchup on the votes.

[Mad Mage]

[QUOTE=Mordenkainen;1480016
This is the third vote on me Today. Remember that if I turn up dead.[/QUOTE]

Are you still going for that 3rd vote thingy, we all know about it and it makes about as much sense as the Beer Zone, it is nonsense.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

It's a link to your D1 posts. It was of import only in the fantasy realm where you and Mordenkainen are actually the same person.

It didn't take me anywhere but that's a fascinating idea lol even though you didn't mean it

[Mordenkainen]

Originally Posted by Mordenkainen

I'm afraid the link is invalid. Search terms expire.

Maybe linking to some of the posts would be a good idea?

Now excuse me while I play catchup on the votes.

Originally Posted by Alan_Tudyk

It's a link to your D1 posts. It was of import only in the fantasy realm where you and Mordenkainen are actually the same person.

All is forgiven.

At least, that particular claim is.

[Eileen Dover]

Originally Posted by Mad Mage

I find this kind of vote infuriating because there is no comeback for those you voted for, you are also the third person to do it, did you discuss this in the scum thread?

I thought scum weren't allowed to communicate privately during the Day? Otherwise, that might be a nice theory. I suppose they may have been breadcrumbing somehow but that strikes me as a highly risky strategy.

At least Owlbear provided a reason for doing something similar (which I'm not about to criticise, since it's about the same as my own). On that point, those I have voted still have about 12 hours to convince me otherwise, I intend to only leave one vote standing by end of Day.

[Eileen Dover]

Originally Posted by Mad Mage

Are you still going for that 3rd vote thingy, we all know about it and it makes about as much sense as the Beer Zone, it is nonsense.

^Fixed quote tag.

Edumacate me, please - I think I have vaguely heard of this, is it some theory that the third vote on someone is more likely to be a scum vote? Does it have any statistical basis at all?

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Eileen Dover

I thought scum weren't allowed to communicate privately during the Day? Otherwise, that might be a nice theory. I suppose they may have been breadcrumbing somehow but that strikes me as a highly risky strategy.

At least Owlbear provided a reason for doing something similar (which I'm not about to criticise, since it's about the same as my own). On that point, those I have voted still have about 12 hours to convince me otherwise, I intend to only leave one vote standing by end of Day.

Hmm, I didn't read where there were post restrictions apart from the obvious ones and no pics, I assumed scum could chat at any time, my bad.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Eileen Dover

^Fixed quote tag.

Edumacate me, please - I think I have vaguely heard of this, is it some theory that the third vote on someone is more likely to be a scum vote? Does it have any statistical basis at all?

Thanks for fixing the vote tags, me and computers are not friends

It was a theory going back to when i first started playing, about 10 years ago, that the 3rd vote on a person must be scum, it has since been disproved, the Beer Zone states that scum must be in the middle range of posters so as not to draw attention to themselves, also not proved, but fun to look at. SNF usually does that post and I don't know if he is playing this game and if he is then I don't know who his sock is.

[Bahamut]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

For low participation:







Ogre Jelly is at the top of Illithid's list. With him/her not posting the whole Claim idea has stalled.

These votes are too easy. Your assumption that a mass claim had been agreed upon, and that it is only Ogre Jelly who is holding it up, is flawed.

[Eileen Dover]

Originally Posted by Mad Mage

Thanks for fixing the vote tags, me and computers are not friends

It was a theory going back to when i first started playing, about 10 years ago, that the 3rd vote on a person must be scum, it has since been disproved, the Beer Zone states that scum must be in the middle range of posters so as not to draw attention to themselves, also not proved, but fun to look at. SNF usually does that post and I don't know if he is playing this game and if he is then I don't know who his sock is.

Thanks. Both look like nonsense to me. Admittedly I'm rather inexperienced, but when I'm scum I aim to play exactly as I would play as town. Doesn't everyone? It wouldn't even occur to me to try and vote for a target in a particular order, or pay attention to exact post counts. Content is what counts as far as I'm concerned.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Bahamut

These votes are too easy. Your assumption that a mass claim had been agreed upon, and that it is only Ogre Jelly who is holding it up, is flawed.

His votes don't actually make sense either, yes Ogre Jelly for low content but the other two. Maybe their posts aren't high but they do have content. And why do Illithids votes count more than any other just because we know he is Town?

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Eileen Dover

Thanks. Both look like nonsense to me. Admittedly I'm rather inexperienced, but when I'm scum I aim to play exactly as I would play as town. Doesn't everyone? It wouldn't even occur to me to try and vote for a target in a particular order, or pay attention to exact post counts. Content is what counts as far as I'm concerned.

That is why both theories are nonsense, we are playing with people, not computers.

[Mordenkainen]

Originally Posted by Eileen Dover

^Fixed quote tag.

Edumacate me, please - I think I have vaguely heard of this, is it some theory that the third vote on someone is more likely to be a scum vote? Does it have any statistical basis at all?

The theory is that the third vote on a proven Townie is statistically more likely to be placed by a Mafia-aligned player that change would suggest. There have been nalyses to demonstrate this, but i don't have access to them. I can remember one instance, and that was played on the SDMB in 2006 or 2007.

It's actually more effective as a tool in environments where it's not generally known or believed, because in environments where it's known, Mafia players will be careful not to be the third vote.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

For low participation:







Ogre Jelly is at the top of Illithid's list. With him/her not posting the whole Claim idea has stalled.

I don't understand why you so so gungho about claiming, haven't you read the reasons why Town shouldn't claim? This confuses me because scum could so take advantage of this and we aren't in a position to take chances now. Do you think an investigator should out himself, or a healer or Friendly's Master, this is beyond me.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Mordenkainen

The theory is that the third vote on a proven Townie is statistically more likely to be placed by a Mafia-aligned player that change would suggest. There have been nalyses to demonstrate this, but i don't have access to them. I can remember one instance, and that was played on the SDMB in 2006 or 2007.

It's actually more effective as a tool in environments where it's not generally known or believed, because in environments where it's known, Mafia players will be careful not to be the third vote.

I know that but someone has to be the 3rd vote or there won't be a lynch, if scum know that then should they wait until the 4th vote and so on and so forth, it's nonsensical.

[Owlbear]

Originally Posted by Mad Mage

His votes don't actually make sense either, yes Ogre Jelly for low content but the other two. Maybe their posts aren't high but they do have content. And why do Illithids votes count more than any other just because we know he is Town?

Once more with feeling: we've lost 7 Town in 2 Days. At best, we are at 9 to 5, and possibly worse. This IS the time to Claim, so we have any chance of figuring out who's who.

By Dawn tomorrow, if things go as they did in the last Day and Night, we will be 6/5. Scum will be able to almost certainly control the vote. We need to do this now.

Illithid's votes don't matter any more than anyone else's except that we know he/she thinks they're voting for Scum.

[Friendly_Illithid]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

Once more with feeling: we've lost 7 Town in 2 Days. At best, we are at 9 to 5, and possibly worse.
.

Why on earth do you think this?

[Owlbear]

Originally Posted by Friendly_Illithid

Why on earth do you think this?

Early on our Mod indicated that Scum was about a quarter of the total. 21 divided by 4 is 5.25.

[Friendly_Illithid]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

Early on our Mod indicated that Scum was about a quarter of the total. 21 divided by 4 is 5.25.

Really? Do you have a link?

I would have said average scum to town ratio is scum should be about the square root of the number of town. Depending on the amount of power roles that might change in either direction. But usually I would have expected scum to be in more of a minority. That said, if Pleo said it somewhere then I'm ready to be proven wrong.

[Mordenkainen]

Originally Posted by Friendly_Illithid

Really? Do you have a link?

It's in the rules, paragraph 2.

[Friendly_Illithid]

Originally Posted by Mordenkainen

It's in the rules, paragraph 2.

I even went back to check and still missed it Ok, point taken, we're closer to lynch or lose than I would have assumed.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Friendly_Illithid

I even went back to check and still missed it Ok, point taken, we're closer to lynch or lose than I would have assumed.

It said about 3 quarters will be Town and one quarter scum, sorry I don't know how to do that mathematically.

[Mad Mage]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

Early on our Mod indicated that Scum was about a quarter of the total. 21 divided by 4 is 5.25.

So do you think the Mod rounded it up or down? Either way it's a lot.

[Owlbear]

I don't know. It is either 5 or 6. With all the powers Town has (or did have) I wouldn't be surprised at 6.

[Owlbear]

Which is why we need the Mass Claim before it's too late!

[Friendly_Illithid]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

Which is why we need the Mass Claim before it's too late!

A mass claim outs whoever my master is which might give scum an extra kill tonight depending on all the various blocks and protections in existence.

[Friendly_Illithid]

This late in the day I don't think I'm in favour of the mass claim because it sets scum up with info they can capitalise on overnight whereas town don't have time to build new momentum.



I'm genuinely baffled. My vote is still on Onna Role because they claimed an unblockable block and Bahamut still got results the night it was used.

Owlbear pings me the most of anyone but I have no case to hang around it other than my skepticism over the D2 "I have no information" followed very quickly by the "Actually I got a PM with information last night". Also I'm vaguely suspicious that the mix up over modkilling kali resulting in another Monster death being some mix up due to speculation on the scum board that kali was my master so I would die with them if they were modkilled. I went back to try to make a case today on that exact issue but Owlbear was explicitly saying that they thought the extra kill would only happen if modkilled which doesn't tie with that theory at all.

because he's just pinging the hell out of me I guess? I have no better case.

for participation.

[Owlbear]

A mass claim also helps the vig target scum.

[Eileen Dover]

Look at this way: this is an all power game. So yes, we as town have lots of power, but so do scum, even if they only have one power each. We don't really know what or how many powers scum have yet, except we know they have some sort of additional night killing ability (well, assuming we believe some of the partial claims made about information received). The only things we have going for us that scum do not are knowledge of our powers, and numbers.

In my experience, games of Mafia generally go one of two ways. Either town get lucky early on and nail one or two scum right out of the gate, in which case it's a real uphill struggle for the remaining scum to win. Clearly that hasn't happened here. More commonly, town mislynch several times to begin with (because they don't know what they're doing and scum can subtly manipulate the voting), but gradually gain more information and start to hit their targets. Pleonast of course knows this. So my feeling is that he would have kind of expected this state of play, and given town enough powers to get themselves out of trouble.

Now, I'm not saying I'm necessarily against a mass claim, but I can respect the views of those with different powers from mine that with one more night, we could actually make a breakthrough. Whereas by effectively letting scum know who to target with their powers, that could be neutralized.

Note that I don't see your advocacy of the mass claim as necessarily scummy at this stage, so I'm not minded to vote you for it, but it could be a bold scum move, I suppose.

[Bahamut]

You're right. We are vulnerable. This may be LyLo. But we have a better chance with certain roles hidden than not.

Additionally, we don't know that there is a vig. There's F_I's master. There was Jeopardy Contestant, who had two spare kills and used them. We know there were two Monster kills Night One, and zero Night Two. And I keep coming back to your choice to block Friendly_Illithid on the assumption you were going to jailkeep and not protect them, which was an even less safe assumption than my own choice to withhold information. F_I was outed and was therefore a logical target for every Watcher/tracker etc. in the game.

[Bahamut]

NETA: Jeopardy Contestant probably used their kill power.

[Eileen Dover]

Originally Posted by Owlbear

A mass claim also helps the vig target scum.

Only if we actually manage to catch scum in a lie. Obviously scum are going to claim a Monster role in the event of a mass claim. How will we know who to believe? It could just lead to more confusion.

FI also makes a good point that I didn't see before my previous post. I'm more and more coming round to the view that a mass claim at this stage favours scum.