Soviet Mafia Night Zero

[Pleonast]

Welcome comrades! It your duty to finish Revolution! The soviet choose Executioner now on Wednesday March 27 at 12:00 Californian Bear Soviet time.

Live election coverage.

[Biotop]

for Executioner.

[Inner Stickler]

Hello comrades! I am here and ready to root out the dirty capitalists!

[Inner Stickler]

Oh is that how we're starting off?

for Executioner then.

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Hello comrades! I am here and ready to root out the dirty capitalists!

Ha! In Soviet Union root crops are the vegetables we love best.

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by Biotop

Yes. But one assumes the other 10 players might want a power role too.

This was in the pre-game.

I have no idea what it means. One assumes the other 10 palyers might want a power role too? Huh?

Vote Mahaloth

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Mahaloth

This was in the pre-game.

I have no idea what it means. One assumes the other 10 palyers might want a power role too? Huh?

Vote Mahaloth

It means almost everyone likely wants a power role.

Mahaloth, if elected Executioner, do you promise to kill the player chosen on Day1 by the Proletariat so long as it is not you?

[Biotop]

Same question for Inner Stickler. My answer to that question is da!

[Inner Stickler]

Sorry, if I missed it in the setup thread, was there a discussion of a secondary informal vote to choose a candidate for execution? Game-wise, there's no constraints on the executioner's choice.

At this point, I don't see a reason why a soviet executioner wouldn't abide by group opinion. If a capitalist were the lead target and a capitalist was the executioner, they'd either have to kill the capitalist or out themselves, I assume is the thinking?

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Sorry, if I missed it in the setup thread, was there a discussion of a secondary informal vote to choose a candidate for execution? Game-wise, there's no constraints on the executioner's choice.

At this point, I don't see a reason why a soviet executioner wouldn't abide by group opinion. If a capitalist were the lead target and a capitalist was the executioner, they'd either have to kill the capitalist or out themselves, I assume is the thinking?

No discussion yet, but it seems right. We are electing a single player to do the group work.

[Inner Stickler]

I'm not opposed to it necessarily, but is it in the spirit of the game? If we do that, why bother with the executioner aspect at all?

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I'm not opposed to it necessarily, but is it in the spirit of the game? If we do that, why bother with the executioner aspect at all?

I don't see how it violates the spirit of the the game. The rules clearly state that we are electing someone to do the job for us. How are they going to do the job for us if we do not tell them what we want them to do?

The executioner is not simply a vig. They are elected to do what we wish. The Cop is elected to investigate who we think should be investigated. There is no rule that says they have to follow through, but that's up to us to enforce.

[Logic]

I shall not vote myself for executioner. But my vote will go to who I assess as the most trustworthy person before the deadline.

Besides, isn't voting the American/Capitalist thing?

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Biotop

The rules clearly state that we are electing someone to do the job for us.

I don't see that in the rules. It's certainly a viable assumption as to how the role should function but we could just as easily have everyone declare who they would execute or investigate and then people could vote for all of the other players who are targeting the same person.

[Biotop]

Let's say we mostly think Mary should be killed by the Executioner, but that player kills Tom instead. They argue that despite most people thinking Mary should have been the choice, they were much more suspicious of Tom.

So Tom is dead. Now what? Was our Executioner right, wrong,or nefarious? Who knows? There is no reveal. We can get a Cop report, and then we have to decide whether to trust the Cop or not.

Either we expect our elected powers to abide by the will of the people, or we have pretty much chaos.

[Inner Stickler]

I'm not suggesting electing executioners blindly. There should be a vigorous amount of debate and if Tom-killer is elected executioner, it should be because they've been very clear about their distrust of Tom and the body politic is ok with that.

If an executioner campaigned on killing Mary and then turned around and killed Tom, that's absolutely a sketch thing that would probably mean the executioner should go down next.

[Biotop]

From the rules:

This game does not have a lynch. Players do not have their side revealed when they die. Instead, these functions are performed by players duly elected by the soviet.

I read this to mean that instead of the lynch, we elect a single player to make the lynch for us. Instead of a reveal, we elect a single player to obtain us a reveal. Why would we leave that decision to the single player without expecting them to do the will of the people? A single player may be Town or Scum, but the majority is always more Town unless the game is over.

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I'm not suggesting electing executioners blindly. There should be a vigorous amount of debate and if Tom-killer is elected executioner, it should be because they've been very clear about their distrust of Tom and the body politic is ok with that.

If an executioner campaigned on killing Mary and then turned around and killed Tom, that's absolutely a sketch thing that would probably mean the executioner should go down next.

I don't think we are really disagreeing with each other.

However, I am promising to do the will of the people if I am elected to either role unless that will is to kill me.

[Inner Stickler]

I'm just worried that trying to run a separate non-rule governed will of the people vote along side the game votes will get messy and confusing and hard to police.

But if candidates state who they would kill or investigate, then we still get the will of the people but without the secondary vote.

[TexCat]

Hello comrades!

I am in agreement that the executioner follow the will of the people. When I am elected I kill who you want.



Not so sure about Commissar. Knowing who the Commissar is investigating may give Capitalist pigs some advantage when selecting their kill? Commissar can investigate dead or alive persons, correct?

[Inner Stickler]

Yes, the commissar can investigate dead players as well. I don't believe Pleo is answering questions in the game thread so if you have a genuine question you need a ruling on, you'll need to send him a PM.

If the capitalists kill the player targeted by the commissar, that confirms the commissar's result, no?

[Dead Cat]

I'm not sure I fully understand the game so I'm not going to put myself up for election yet. I am naturally suspicious of those who seek power.

[Dead Cat]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Yes, the commissar can investigate dead players as well. I don't believe Pleo is answering questions in the game thread so if you have a genuine question you need a ruling on, you'll need to send him a PM.

If the capitalists kill the player targeted by the commissar, that confirms the commissar's result, no?

Yeah, SWNDT (Scum Would Never Do That) . If only things were that simple.

[Inner Stickler]

I'm just trying to think through the possibilities.

soviet com and soviet target-> capitalists kill soviet target and com reports soviet alignment : soft confirm for com maybe not

soviet com and capitalist target -> capitalists kill capitalist target (error error division by zero) and com reports capitalist alignment : confusion and panic but down one capitalist

capitalist com and soviet target -> capitalists kill soviet target (presumably they were going to kill a soviet anyway) and com reports ??? (presumably soviet otherwise wth) : mmm this looks dangerously like the first scenario

capitalist com and capitalist target -> capitalists kill capitalist target (haha nope) and com reports ????

Perhaps it would be better for the commissar to be secret.

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I'm just worried that trying to run a separate non-rule governed will of the people vote along side the game votes will get messy and confusing and hard to police.

But if candidates state who they would kill or investigate, then we still get the will of the people but without the secondary vote.

But saying explicitly who you will kill doesn't take into account new information received during the following Day. How can you campaign toNight on the case that you will kill Mary toMorrow dusk, when by the time toMorrow dusk comes the tide may have turned and opinions may have changed? After this first toNight/toMorrow we will always have a new Commissar's report to go on, but that will not arrive until the following Day? So campaigning to kill Mary on a Night when a report may come the next Dawn that Mary is Town or that Tom is Scum is not a good platform.

[Inner Stickler]

I guess I am making the assumption that a soviet executioner would think to take the commissar's report into account before sending a name in for execution.

[Biotop]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I guess I am making the assumption that a soviet executioner would think to take the commissar's report into account before sending a name in for execution.

Right. But we elect the Executioner at Night, yet their kill choice is not due until Dusk the next Day. So it will be difficult most times for an Executioner to know at Night who should be killed next Day Dusk. Thus it is better, IMHO, to commit to a group decision made during the following Day.

[brownie55]

Just want to let you know I am here and following along. My head is spinning with possibilities, or maybe just spinning. Here are words I'd never thought I'd say, Go Soviet.

[TexCat]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Yes, the commissar can investigate dead players as well. I don't believe Pleo is answering questions in the game thread so if you have a genuine question you need a ruling on, you'll need to send him a PM.

If the capitalists kill the player targeted by the commissar, that confirms the commissar's result, no?

Yes, but I think Capitalist pigs prefer dead confirmed workers to live confirmed workers.

[Inner Stickler]

My head hurts.

In a normal game, scum kill known town because their judgment can be assumed to be pro-town.

But in this game, since there are no flips, a commissar reporting that a player is town doesn't actually tell us anything about the commissar or the player, unless the investigated player later turns up dead as the result of a nightkill. But all that says is they are, at best, likely town. So anyone who claims to have investigated them and reported a town result gets points in the truthfulness column.

A capitalist commissar has no need of the investigation as they know already who is capitalist and who is soviet. They can pick anyone and always claim their target is soviet. This ruse would only be found out if someone who was soviet later investigates the same person and gets a result of capitalist. How many days is the game expected to last? 6? 10? Is it likely that we will be willing to retest someone multiple times with different commissars to try to find liars?

I don't think we can trust the pool of investigated as town players since we have no way of determining which commissars are liars until at least one player is investigated at least twice and the commissars report different results. The NK, though, we know comes from the capitalists and we can probably assume they will not kill one of their own unless absolutely necessary.

[Dead Cat]

Thinking 'aloud' - would it be possible for us to set up a virtuous circle after 3 Days? In other words, we vote in a Commissar, they agree to target someone who we agree to vote in as the next Commissar, they agree to target the first Commissar. If all three players who have been Commissar then disclose that their investigative target came up soviet, then we would have 3 confirmed soviets, would we not? Except in the case that we (very unfortunately) selected exactly 3 capitalists for these positions. Of course, it's also fairly unlikely that we manage to pick three soviets to vote in, in which case presumably claims and counter-claims will begin. And the capitalists can also throw spanners in the works with NKs. But is it worth a shot?

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Dead Cat

In other words, we vote in a Commissar, they agree to target someone who we agree to vote in as the next Commissar, they agree to target the first Commissar.

This is only two, isn't it?

[Dead Cat]

I see the rules do not specify two important points: whether capitalists have Day chat (I think we have to assume they do), and how many capitalists there are. I infer from the setup that (in the mod's opinion) this is an easier game to balance than standard Mafia, since the mod said any number of players above 10 was possible, and there are no secret/extra powers. This game strikes me as rather closer to Secret Hitler than Mafia - in the former, I believe the two sides are balanced rather closer to 50-50 than in the latter. Though it strikes me that if I am right about this, it seems counter-intuitive, in that this setup seems to confer more advantages to Scum than a standard Mafia game, with no confirmed reveals. On the other hand, a game with a close to 50-50 split between sides does fit with the (lack of) criteria for number of players. So, I'm going to go with a working assumption of there being 7 soviet players and 5 capitalist players at the start. Why? Because I think with 10 players (the stated minimum) the balance would have been 6-4 (because 5-5 would seem to be much too heavily weighted in favour of capitalists, and 7-3 would, if balanced, be harder to add more players one by one and remain balanced). Then with 11 players it becomes 7-4, 12 becomes 7-5 (because if it went to 8-4, again we would seem to have a balancing problem).

This post and my last are all highly speculative - please can someone (preferably, several people) pick holes in them?

[Dead Cat]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

This is only two, isn't it?

Thank you. Yes, my mistake. A cycle of two doesn't work as a capitalist member of such a cycle would simply denounce the other person if they were themselves denounced, and we would be no further forward. Plus there would be a much greater risk of randomly picking two capitalists and generating a false positive. Insert another cycle into that quote above and we have what I meant.

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by Biotop

Mahaloth, if elected Executioner, do you promise to kill the player chosen on Day1 by the Proletariat so long as it is not you?

No, and I don't think that should be a requirement of the job. I'm not saying I wouldn't ever do that, but I am not promising or committing to.

[brownie55]

Originally Posted by Mahaloth

No, and I don't think that should be a requirement of the job. I'm not saying I wouldn't ever do that, but I am not promising or committing to.

I agree, I can only promise to do what is best for the comrades.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by Dead Cat

I'm not sure I fully understand the game so I'm not going to put myself up for election yet.

Why not? Multivoting is specifically called for and you are the only person 100% confident in your motivations. I don't see why every player doesn't automatically vote for themselves at the start of each Day and Night. We can all still vote for more people based on how trustworthy we think they are.

[brownie55]

So we are at Night 0 and voting for an Executioner to kill someone toDusk. Since I know I am of the Soviet:

[SNFaulkner]

As promised

[SNFaulkner]

So as I understand it, we Soviets won't for sure know jack about shit until game over, right? Remember I put a minimum of effort into reading the rules and this thread so far.

[brownie55]

Originally Posted by SNFaulkner

So as I understand it, we Soviets won't for sure know jack about shit until game over, right? Remember I put a minimum of effort into reading the rules and this thread so far.

Yes. Don't read the rules, your head will hurt. Fat, drunk, and stupid is exactly the way to go through life, son.

[brownie55]

Originally Posted by brownie55

Yes. Don't read the rules, your head will hurt. Fat, drunk, and stupid is exactly the way to go through life, son.

Oops, I missed my cue, "That's the way I do it!"

[SNFaulkner]

Originally Posted by brownie55

Yes. Don't read the rules, your head will hurt. Fat, drunk, and stupid is exactly the way to go through life, son.

My fatness is debatable. But I gots the other two!

[Merestil Haye]

Greetings, Comrades of the Giraffe Soviet!

The revolution needs to be made secure by rooting out the recidivist antirevolutionary capitalist running dogs! I will take up the mantle of Dzerzhinsky and root out the captialist traitors!

for Executionor.

To other would be executioners - persuade me of your ideological purity and political soundness or face the wrath of the proletariat!

[Suburban Plankton]

Originally Posted by brownie55

Yes. Don't read the rules, your head will hurt. Fat, drunk, and stupid is exactly the way to go through life, son.

So SNFaulkner is going to become a sensitivity trainer in Cleveland?

I see no reason why anyone should not vote for themselves as Executioner. I an the only person I can trust to do the job fairly.

I will not promise that if I am elected as Executioner, that I will target the "people's choice". I will, however, give it the appropriate amount of weight when making my decision.

[brownie55]

Originally Posted by Suburban Plankton

So SNFaulkner is going to become a sensitivity trainer in Cleveland?

I see no reason why anyone should not vote for themselves as Executioner. I an the only person I can trust to do the job fairly.

I will not promise that if I am elected as Executioner, that I will target the "people's choice". I will, however, give it the appropriate amount of weight when making my decision.

Leave Cleveland alone. Best blues bar I was ever in was in Cleveland.

[SNFaulkner]

I actually lived in Cleveland from 4th grade until I graduated high school. Well, Strongsville anyway. I have no desire or reason to ever return. Except to see if I still hold the long jump record. But that's a very low priority.

[brownie55]

Inner Stickler and SNFaulkner, can I ask for the reason you voted for other than yourself?

[SNFaulkner]

I promised mahaloth I'd vote for him in the sign up thread. Also, I don't trust my own judgment for the murderingses.

[Inner Stickler]

I'm leaning soviet on him currently.