Mafia 8 (Day 4) Oh boy what a night!

[mathcam]

porro, I think you missed one on your vote count: SaberKitty voting for Hitman. And I agree...a little suspicious, if you ask me. So I also

Vote: Hitman

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, I suppose I'm sold:

Unvote: Hitman, Vote: Pim

Note: this vote was not at all random.

Cam

[mathcam]

lystrodom:

no bandwagons make much sense right now, so I'm not voteing yet.

I don't really understand this mindset. Is the hope that the mafia will accidentally reveal themselves, and then we can all go after him/her? I can't imagine there have been many mafia games where a mafia person says something so stupid that they gave themselves away on day 1. More often, probably, townspeople accidentally say stupid things that get themselves lynched. I think the way to go first day is, barring any strong hunches, decide whether or not it's in the townspeople's best interests to lynch at (semi-)random, and if we decide it's best to lynch, then bandwagon, again at (semi-)random. Quite frankly, I'll probably join any bandwagon that's not me, because well hey, it's pretty clear that I'm not a mafia (at least to me it is). Or if nothing else, that last sentence was the aforementioned "stupid thing said by a townsperson", I'll get lynched, and at least the day will be pleasantly irony-filled. Thus,

Unvote: Pim

Vote: Blicero

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, if you're claining to be a bastard, and I happen to KNOW that mafia are bastards, then that's evidence against you, my friend. This is my first long (non-mini) game...can people speculate as to how many mafia there are out there (and how many clans), so I can get a better feeling for my odds of picking a mafia?

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm not saying that using logic on the first day is bad. All I'm saying is that no logic (i.e. random) is better than bad logic. Bad logic will lynch townspeople more often than random, so we may as well kill randomly. Good logic, of course, if great, but good logic has to be based on some kind of information, which seems to be at somewhat of a premium right now. I feel the best logic there is out there is trying to minimized the chances that we let the mafia say something that convinces us to kill a townsperson and to instead vote randomly. If you think this is stupid, then feel free to leave your vote on me.

Cam

[mathcam]

Oh yeah, and do you people really think that the mafia would really impatiently decry that we should lynch the impatient people? Lystrodom's statement was somewhat foolish, but not really incriminating, in my mind...perhaps even de-incriminating, to an extent.

Cam

[mathcam]

Yeah, I guess I'm mostly convinced. I'll aid Pim in prodding.

Unvote; Blicero

Vote: jesternl

Cam

[mathcam]

I see what you're saying, but if someone doesn't respond to a prod, then we're at least lynching a less productive member of society. Granted, this would require tremendous support from the rest of the population, but I truly don't feel like there's anything better to go on. We need to manage our resources, and it seems to me like our only resources are talkative people. Good or bad, we get the most information from them.

Cam

[mathcam]

Am I right in thinking that if two people are tied when the deadline comes, then both are lynched?

Cam

[mathcam]

So you're suggesting that the optimal play is what? It sound like you're suggesting one of three options:

1) Don't kill at all. This is quite possible and I would have liked to have heard more discussion on this topic, but I don't think this is what you were driving at.
2) Kill randomly, in which case we have just as good of a chance as killing a cop as killing a non-talker randomly. In this case, we may as well kill a non-talker because, again, whether they're mafia or good, the talkers are more useful to us than non-talkers. It's possible that a non-poster is simply not going to talk without evidence, but there's also the chance that we're never going to hear from them again...dead-weight for the team.
3) Email the moderator with tons and tons of extend-day requests so that people can get their lives together enough to post. This is pretty clearly stupid.

Basically, if you don't want to kill randomly among the quiet, what do you suggest we do? Do you really have that gut feeling that Blicero or Lystrodom really IS mafia and just horribly blundered into getting us all to vote for them? There's probably some quiet mafia, and probably some talking mafia...the talking mafia will eventually give themselves away. The quiet ones won't.

Cam

[mathcam]

I guess I'm equally suspicious of both right now, but we gain the most information about people from their votes when the voting is already close, so to shrink the gap.

Vote: DS

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, casinopete, I am somewhat compelled by your argument agsint gaspode, which makes it all the harder to denounce your argument against me. There's certainly no denying I argued against voting for mafia Lystrodom and jumping on the Blicero bandwagon, and the subsequent DS bandwagon. I do have somethings to say, however:

Wishy-washy evidence, this. People do err sometimes.

First and foremost, OF COURSE it's wishy-washy. All the evidence the first day was wishy-washy. When given 30 people to vote for, if I have even a slight feeling that anyone's innocent, then I'll vote for someone else. That "evidence" wouldn't have even convinced

me

had there been fewer people. I didn't want to vote for Lystrodom because I didn't think he would bring himself to attention like that if he were mafia. First, I don't think I would have called him an idiot if he were on my team. Second, if he were on my team, I think the smart play would have been to stay quiet and let him wallow in his own mistake. Not vote for him, probably, but certainly don't jump in and try to save him.

If you think the bandwagons are on equally suspicious players, then how do you "gain the most information about people from their votes when the voting is already close"? No matter who they vote for, they're agreeing with you. What information does that give you?

You're quite simply wrong on this one. Say, for example, there's only one person being bandwagoned and that person has a large majority of the votes. More people jumping on the bandwagon gives us little information. Such a jumper could just as easily be a mafia realizing their teammate was toast anyway as it could be a townsperson trying to end the day or just jumping on for the sake of jumping on. If the vote is close, however, then every vote represents a decision. If two people are tied in the vote count, then if/when we find out what those people's alignments are, we can word backwards and to deduce alignments of the people that voted for and against them. For example, a mafia member would presumably not cast the tie-breaking vote to lynch his fellow mafia rather than an innocent townie.

In part to defend myself and in part because I bought the argument:

Unvote: DS Vote: Gaspode

Cam

[mathcam]

My apologies about the unclear phrasing, mathcam. eillid is precisely correct about what I meant by it.

Ah, got it.

Your first quote says that agreeing with casinopete's argument against me would make it harder for you to denounce his argument against yourself. You later say that voting me is helping to defend you. Which is it?

I can see how this is confusing. The way I intended the latter of these was to defend against the possibility of the two of us being on a mafia team together.

And if there's a link between mathcam and anyone, it seems more likely to be Diplomat. (Partially because he seem to be a lot more careful with what he said about Diplomat than he was with what he said about Gaspode.)

Hmm. I don't think I said anything about Diplomat, did I? I realize that this is going to look like I'm jumping ship rather quickly, and based on other's peoples accusations of me and that persion, but

Unvote: Gaspode Vote: Diplomat

.

It's between him, Gaspode, DS, and Trevize in my mind, and I'll probably jump on whoever has the biggest bandwagon.

Cam

[mathcam]

It's too bad we can't lynch both of them.

Unvote: Diplomat Vote: Gaspode

Maybe I'll just oscillate back and forth every day until we end up lynching one of them.

Cam

[mathcam]

It's too bad we can't lynch both of them.

Maybe one of these days I'll learn to stop making these inane statements that seem to strongly imply that I'm mafia.

Cam

[mathcam]

I guess I just don't follow a lot of what MatthewV says, though I do kind of agree that lynching Gaspode may be a waste of a perfectly good lynching. At least for irony's sake,

Unvote: Gaspode Vote: MatthewV

Cam

[mathcam]

I don't think I was voting for you for sticking up for Gaspode, MatthewV....just some of the things you said were kind of suspicious. Other people of listed these well, so I won't bother doing it again here. I'm kind of swayed by your impassionate cry, however, and even if you are mafia, at least you're posting and caring about the game:

Unvote: MatthewV Vote: Diplomat

Cam

[mathcam]

Well crap...we just can't seem to catch a break....at least they could have kill some regular townies. Maybe if we ask nicely, the mafia will ease up on us a bit. Perhaps a weekly tribute?

As for a post actually pertinent to the game: I would presume the mafia were intelligent enough to kill mostly at random, but in case, not, do we have a feel for who would want Sugar dead? And, of course, Gaspode is dead...there MUST be some information we can get from that. He seemed like a silly choice. Weren't we going to protect him?

Cam

[mathcam]

Eh, I kind of like the quercitron idea in the absence of any others. For now,

Vote: Quercitron

Cam

[mathcam]

Just an OMGUS vote, or is there any reasoning that would help me switch my vote?

Cam

[mathcam]

Also, the non-vote for Quercitron for forgetting about the game, but a quick vote for MatthewV for, in the very humorous words of MeMe, being an idiot. I think I just strongly clash with DragonSlayer's approach to voting for this game in general, which makes me a little hesitant to, but not stop me from,

Unvote: Quercitron, Vote: DragonSlayer

And if he turns out to be mafia, I'll be looking to Quercitron next.

Cam

[mathcam]

I'm an escaped convict. Now, looking at this role might give a PI the idea that my role is evil. Actually, I was told I was pro-town.

I guess I'm a little confused about this....don't you think a PI would have been told the exact same stuff that you were told? Or is a PI only given the title of the role? That seems like it woul dbe a little odd, as moderators often come up with new names or new roles, for which simply the name of the role wouldn't be that helpful. On the other hand, I kind of agree with

Anyone who can come up with sucAnyone who can come up with such a role claim deserves to live another day

,

so

Unvote: DS

.

Unfortunately, I'm now caught in a quandry. Here's where I'd typically join the CasinoPete bandwagon, as I'm want to do, but I really just don't find him that suspicious. He was pretty helpful for the first day, and I don't find his silence at all eerie or spooky. I can't imagine his silence is due to anything except a non-mafia-related occurence. Would it really be a sound strategy to play the "silent mafia" game after being so loud and visible the first day? The one thing I do find rather suspicious about him is the "I've been really helpful, doctors protect me" claim (or somthing like it) before night 2 (I think it was 2). I'd be happier going after someone else, but if the town wills the death of casinopete, then who am I to argue? Until then, I'm going to go with my other slight, though mostly unfounded, suspicion:

Vote: Mike Amok

.

Cam

[mathcam]

I was concerned after I made my vote that Mike Amok had made a role claim earlier that I had forgotten about, so I went through and looked at every one of his posts. (Question to everyone: Is there an easy way to look at one particular person's posts in one game? I know you can find all of their posts in all games, but can you specify one game?) Mike Amok has only posted one-liners, voting for whoever is the most voted for at the time. The only opinion he contributed toward anyone was the following:

I'll vote: CaptainBlicero, I don't find Lystrodom the least bit suspicious.

Lystrodom was, of course, evil as the day was long. My erstwhile suspicion of Mike Amok has turned into "Yippee! I found a mafia!" Let's nail 'em. I might go so far as to stake my life (in this game) on the claim that Mike Amok is mafia, but I don't think I will because I'm just not that sure. Nonetheless,

Unvote: Mike Amok

so that I can

Super Duper Kalifragilistic Ultra Vote: Mike Amok

Last,

I think that mathcam usually does more during the day. Brings out the cattle prod, but doesnt have the heart to use it yet.

Yeah, I usually do do more in the game...I just couldn't think of anything to say, so I just now spent about an hour and a half reading through everyone's individual posts. Thanks for the prodding.

Cam

[mathcam]

Well, I apologize for the triple post, especially when the first two were so long, but

Note to Porro: Gaspode is on the dead list and the alive list on page 1.

Is everything else there correct?

Cam

[mathcam]

Hmmm...I'm partly convinced. Or am I just a push-over? That could be the case. I have to confess to not having seen nuch suspicious about Lystrodom's actions either....and I even said this, so my attack on this point was not extremely strong. I should apologize...the claim "voting for whoever is the most voted for at the time" was off-hand and approximate, and not rigorously calculated. I'm still more suspicious of you than Blicero, though, so I'll leave my vote until someone (possibly, Mike, yourself) provides me a better target.

Cam

[mathcam]

Me:

I'm still more suspicious of you than Blicero, though, so I'll leave my vote until someone (possibly, Mike, yourself) provides me a better target.

Mike Amok:

Did you mean Blicero, or DS?

Hmm. Frankly, I have no idea, though both would apply. I'd like to hear other people's opinions on Mike Amok...did they find the defense convincing? Or was there just not enough of an attack? The somewhat sporadic vote count isn't helping the town. To those clinging to people with one vote on them, if you have an strong opinion on who's guilty, you should be trying to convince us others to switch. Otherwise, make an informed decision based on the arguments made by other people. Or heck, vote no lynch or end day or something. I'm leaning toward Mike Amok, but could easily be convinced to someone else (Werebear, Dragon Slayer, or jadesmar, most likely), as I don't think my argument is that strong.

Cam

[mathcam]

You can't write your story AND proclaim your innocence?

Cam

[mathcam]

I still think Mike Amok's our strongest choice, though I'm starting to be swayed toward the werebear/eillid camp. I'm not sure why they're in a camp together, but they're both kind of suspicious to me in similar ways. I don't know. Let' s just agree on someone and hope we get lucky.

Unvote: Mike Amok

Vote: Eillid

,

because MatthewV's never been wrong about anything.

Cam

[mathcam]

SaberKitty:

why would you vote for someone who couldn't post? it's been pointed out in the appropriate thread as well as here. this is so stupid. at least read the thread. lots of stupidity here!

I'm not sure what makes you think I didn't read the thread. I know very well that eillid is not here, and frankly, I don't see the point in the general policy of not voting for someone simply because they're not here. What if say two cops had come out with the claim that he's scum? Should we still not vote for him for courtesy reasons? No. So the general principal of not voting for someone because they're not here doesn't hold water. So if you're claiming that in this particular case it's better not to vote for eillid because he's not here, then where's the line to be drawn? At what percent X do I say "If I'm more than X percent sure that eillid is guilty then I'm allowed to vote for him, otherwise I can't because he's not here." There are certainly situations where it's very important to hear from someone before they get strung up, but I didn't deem this to be one of those cases. What good to us is a player that can't post anyway? Do we have a guarantee that he's ever coming back? Just because you're blue doesn't mean you're right. I agree that Mikeamok's defense wasn't the strongest, but when it comes down to it, this games is all about judging human character. I was somewhat convinced by his paragraph, possibly incorrectly, so I switched my vote. It's not pure crap just because you say it is.

Another patented Mathcam saying one person is our best bet while voting another *grin*

Yeah, well, what can I say? I'm wishy-washy.

Unvote: Eillid, Vote: DS

Sorry DS, but at least we'll know to string Mike up if you're innocent (assuming we get a full role description revealed).

Cam

[mathcam]

That sucks, Pete. If you need anyone whacked, just let me know. Oops, ummm...never mind.

Cam