Mini 237- Basic Mafia - Game over!

[Commodore Amazing]

Do we want to go no lynch already? We've got eight people, and there are probably 3 scum.

[Nightfall]

Sorry for the double post but I have two little questions,

-a- Ibaesha was a non-sane cop with a guilty on Sineish,

Non-sane cops in minis are

incredibly

rare.

Are non-sane cops really that rare in minis? I think about 30% of the games I've played so far have had one, either non-sane or some other type. Although that percent is low, I dont think I would call it incredibly rare.

I'm very curious why the mafia has killed her, tough. I don't see anything in her posts that gives away she's a cop, so why kill her instead of d8P, the confirmed innocent?

This one's obvious - they know the masons aren't the cop. Aim at a non-mason, and you've got a better chance of hitting the cop (or vig, or roleblocker, or whatever), which generally pose a greater threat.[/quote]

On the topic or rare roles, is it that common to have a town role blocker?
Most games I've been in so far, even hinting at the chance you may be a role blocker seems to draw some votes your way.

[Mr Stoofer]

Commodore, can you set out your case against Seol, please. I'd be delighted to find an excuse to lynch Seol but he's not seriously tripping my scumdar at present.

I am surprised that Seol said that "Non-sane cops in minis are

incredibly

rare". They are not. Seol was in Mini 211 where the (only) cop was paranoid, for example. But I can't see what good it does a scum to say this (quite the opposite of what a scum would be likely to argue, in fact).

[Seol]

My best guess is Seol. I thought Seol was cop yesterday with innocent investigations on me and Mr Stoofer. Hence, the

hifive: Mr Stoofer

in his first post,

That was meaningless - just day 1 banter. He had my back, he deserved a little palm-to-palm action.

and the fact that he completely ignored me in his analysis involving Sineish, Falcone, and ibaesha. I didn't know what my interaction was among those three, so I went back to check, and it wasn't very favorable. I had no idea why he suddenly thought I wasn't scummy, unless he had investigated me (which made sense, since was so adamant about getting me lynched day one).

Well, you asked the question, so I'll give my answer. You didn't look favourable in that analysis, but I eliminated you for a different reason. I was pretty sure you were the third Mason. Apparently, I was wrong on that point. I'll be happy to write up my reasoning for thinking that tonight, when I can do proper post-analysis.

Commodore, can you set out your case against Seol, please. I'd be delighted to find an excuse to lynch Seol but he's not seriously tripping my scumdar at present.

I'll take that as banter, but I'm being generous in doing so. We don't want "excuses" to lynch, we

need to find scum

.

I am surprised that Seol said that "Non-sane cops in minis are incredibly rare". They are not. Seol was in Mini 211 where the (only) cop was paranoid, for example. But I can't see what good it does a scum to say this (quite the opposite of what a scum would be likely to argue, in fact).

I think that's the only mini I've seen which featured a paranoid cop. Most games I play nowadays are minis. Maybe my experience thus far has been non-representative, seeing as two people have disagreed with me. That said, even if we do assume ibaesha was paranoid... what does that lead us to conclude?

[Commodore Amazing]

I think we should be talking about no lynch before anything else.

I've only played one game with an insane cop, and it was a themed mini. I doubt ibaesha was insane, especially since we probably would know at this point.

[Seol]

I think we should be talking about no lynch before anything else.

I disagree. I think we should be talking about who's suspicious and why, and argue it back and forth as much as possible.

Then

we should no-lynch.

[Mr Stoofer]

Of course it's banter, Seol.

[Commodore Amazing]

I was pretty sure you were the third Mason. Apparently, I was wrong on that point. I'll be happy to write up my reasoning for thinking that tonight, when I can do proper post-analysis.

There's no need for that. I reread day one. I can see it. Hmmm... I need to think some more about this so I can present some new wrong conclusions.

[Falcone]

Lots of development here. My thoughts:

1) Thanks to everyone who reacted to my previous post. There seems to be some slight disagreement about the rarity of non-sane cops in Mini games, but at this point I don't see what a mafia member would gain from saying Ibaesha might have been an irregular cop.

2) Commodore, you realize that your theory was flawed from the start, right? It's impossible that Seol is a cop with innocent on Mr Stoofer and yourself, because there has only been one night.

3) When Seol said yesterday he knew (or thought he knew) who the third mason was, I realized he was talking about Commodore. I have one question though: Why is it that you don't think anymore that Commodore is the third mason?

4)

FOS: Nightfall

I'll give my opinion over the events of the last two days later tonight.

[Commodore Amazing]

2) Commodore, you realize that your theory was flawed from the start, right? It's impossible that Seol is a cop with innocent on Mr Stoofer and yourself, because there has only been one night.

No. I did not realize that. I thought this game started with night.

I shouldn't be allowed to play mafia. There should be some sort of qualifying test to weed out people like me.

[Rainbow Brite]

3) When Seol said yesterday he knew (or thought he knew) who the third mason was, I realized he was talking about Commodore. I have one question though: Why is it that you don't think anymore that Commodore is the third mason?

Obviously, since I thought he was cop, I didn't want to say anything, and I figured that with Seol,

myself

, Stoofer,

and the two remaining masons

as innocents, we were in really good shape. Now it doesn't seem so anymore.

[Seol]

3) When Seol said yesterday he knew (or thought he knew) who the third mason was, I realized he was talking about Commodore. I have one question though: Why is it that you don't think anymore that Commodore is the third mason?

Obviously, since I thought he was cop, I didn't want to say anything, and I figured that with Seol,

myself

, Stoofer,

and the two remaining masons

as innocents, we were in really good shape. Now it doesn't seem so anymore.

It is part of my pact with the devil that I post as the wrong persona once in every game.

Sorry, won't happen again. Probably.

[Falcone]

I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

[d8P]

It's a good job I popped in to say good luck. I was positive I'd be killed.

Sheesh. I'll have to reread. I didn't really put much effort in after yesterday's lynch (sorry, partner). I just mentioned what suspicions I could remember without trawling through the thread as I normally do.

Any bets the scum have a rolefinder. Or they got extremely lucky with a risky play instead of the safer, long term strategy.

Anyway, we need to no lynch today, obviously.

[Falcone]

I think there's a good chance Seol is mafia. There are many reasons for this, not all of them very conclusive, but I'll let you guys judge for yourselves.

1) The thing that first got my attention was this:

I've received my prod (oh, the shame! Haven't needed a prod since my first newbie game), and I hadn't forgotten about this one - I've just been busy (I have to say, I don't think a social life actually suits me that well, but sometimes it just happens...) and I've been prioritising games where I was in the middle of big arguments (the fun ones) over the one nearing deadline without much happening (the boring one). Sorry about that...

This sounded to me like: "I was a little busy, so I might as well lurk in the game in which I'm scum."

2) He was a main driving force behind the two townie lynches. He mentioned he'd like to lynch vIQles when there wasn't a bandwagon on him yet, then he didn't let go, and at the end he was the first to dismiss vIQles' doctor claim. Right before Sineish was lynched, he said that he understood what Sineish meant with his comments on the masons, and yet he went ahead with the lynch.

3) He made the weird post about Sineish, Ibaesha and me being scum without giving reasons. Now I see that setting a trap for someone isn't necessarily scummy, but it's certainly a tactic the mafia could use. Where he went out of line I think is when he said Sineish' reaction and mine were suspicious. My reaction to the accusation I explained already and I can certainly understand Sineish'. When he later gave reasons, it was clear they were very weak, based on one supposed "association tell", and a lot of "voting pattern analysis", which was essentially saying: "X, Y & Z didn't vote for each other Day One, so they must be scum together." And we all know who two of the three people he attacked turned out to be…

4) Initially I was suspicious of Seol for another reason, namely the fact that he supposedly had figured out so much of the game in the post where he gave his reasons.

As for ibaesha, that was simply a process of elimination - one player was the mason (not too hard to work out), others had been explicitly attacked and pressured - others were still possible, but ibaesha fitted best.

Now, he recently explained why he thought Commodore was the 3rd mason, but that's still an awful lot of confidence for a townie with limited or no knowledge of the setup, isn't it?

5) One more little thing:

Overwhelmingly likely, in my opinion. Which doesn't tell us much, really.

I'm very curious why the mafia has killed her, tough. I don't see anything in her posts that gives away she's a cop, so why kill her instead of d8P, the confirmed innocent?

This one's obvious - they know the masons aren't the cop. Aim at a non-mason, and you've got a better chance of hitting the cop (or vig, or roleblocker, or whatever), which generally pose a greater threat.

This could be a mafia member eager to point out to a newbie why he made his kill. And apparently our outed mason, who is an experienced player himself, was certain he'd die last night.

So, official

FOS: Seol

, and waiting for reactions.

[Seol]

I think there's a good chance Seol is mafia. There are many reasons for this, not all of them very conclusive, but I'll let you guys judge for yourselves.

1) The thing that first got my attention was this:

I've received my prod (oh, the shame! Haven't needed a prod since my first newbie game), and I hadn't forgotten about this one - I've just been busy (I have to say, I don't think a social life actually suits me that well, but sometimes it just happens...) and I've been prioritising games where I was in the middle of big arguments (the fun ones) over the one nearing deadline without much happening (the boring one). Sorry about that...

This sounded to me like: "I was a little busy, so I might as well lurk in the game in which I'm scum."

Or it could mean "I was in big arguments in my other games, and this one was in a bit of a lull". Would you like me to point you to the other games where I was involved in heated debates at that time?

2) He was a main driving force behind the two townie lynches.

On vIQleS, yes. On Sineish, I was one of quite a few pushing the lynch, and whilst my approach may have been attention-grabbing, I don't think I was the most vocal advocate of the lynch. Not that I'm trying to evade responsibility for my part in it, but I don't think that's a fair representation.

He mentioned he'd like to lynch vIQles when there wasn't a bandwagon on him yet,

No, but the existing bandwagons didn't have anything compelling behind them compared to my thoughts about vIQleS. Why is being prepared to look further than just the existing bandwagons a bad thing? And why do you cite that against me now, but back

before I gave my reasons

, you were willing to say:

I would agree with a viQLes lynch today.

then he didn't let go,

He didn't do anything to quell my suspicions. Quite the opposite, in fact. Why would I let go?

and at the end he was the first to dismiss vIQles' doctor claim.

That's the right thing to do. Firstly:

One tactic used by the mafia is to claim doctor. It is such a powerful claim that it got to the point where a player who claimed doctor was more likely to be mafia than doctor. It's OFTEN used to draw out the real doctor.

Secondly, as I said, even if he was the doc he was dead anyway - so in terms of BWCS, he was on a par with a townie, and pretty much any other town lynch would have been worse. Again, you seemed to agree with me at the time:

To be fair, I would have voted for vIQles hadn’t Stewie been quicker.

Right before Sineish was lynched, he said that he understood what Sineish meant with his comments on the masons, and yet he went ahead with the lynch.

Sineish's comments on the masons weren't the reason I voted him, so my understanding his comments wouldn't make any difference to my vote.

3) He made the weird post about Sineish, Ibaesha and me being scum without giving reasons. Now I see that setting a trap for someone isn't necessarily scummy, but it's certainly a tactic the mafia could use. Where he went out of line I think is when he said Sineish' reaction and mine were suspicious. My reaction to the accusation I explained already and I can certainly understand Sineish'.

I wasn't the only person to think Sineish's reaction was scummy, and I still think your reaction was odd. I can understand that you might feel differently.

When he later gave reasons, it was clear they were very weak, based on one supposed "association tell", and a lot of "voting pattern analysis", which was essentially saying: "X, Y & Z didn't vote for each other Day One, so they must be scum together." And we all know who two of the three people he attacked turned out to be…

No, my reasoning for both yourself and Sineish was that I thought Sineish had given a pretty strong indication that he was part of a group with you, and the voting patterns were just supporting evidence for that main point. Obviously, when Sineish turned up town, the whole theory collapsed.

As for the strength of the reasons, I laid the reasons out in the thread - the only difference between what I did and the usual "here's a reason to suspect someone" argument approach is I tried to get more information out first via the baiting comment. I'm not sure what you think is scummy about either of these approaches, other than that I was on the lynches of two townies. I'm hardly unique in that respect.

4) Initially I was suspicious of Seol for another reason, namely the fact that he supposedly had figured out so much of the game in the post where he gave his reasons.

As for ibaesha, that was simply a process of elimination - one player was the mason (not too hard to work out), others had been explicitly attacked and pressured - others were still possible, but ibaesha fitted best.

Now, he recently explained why he thought Commodore was the 3rd mason, but that's still an awful lot of confidence for a townie with limited or no knowledge of the setup, isn't it?

Well, yes, clearly I was overconfident in the strength of my reasoning. I'd shown the thought processes up to that point, and I also followed the argument quoted above with:

I will say that my case, such as it is, is much weaker against ibaesha than the other two.

So, it's not like I was presenting the argument as being rock-solid - it was a theory, and presented as such.

5) One more little thing:

Overwhelmingly likely, in my opinion. Which doesn't tell us much, really.

I'm very curious why the mafia has killed her, tough. I don't see anything in her posts that gives away she's a cop, so why kill her instead of d8P, the confirmed innocent?

This one's obvious - they know the masons aren't the cop. Aim at a non-mason, and you've got a better chance of hitting the cop (or vig, or roleblocker, or whatever), which generally pose a greater threat.

This could be a mafia member eager to point out to a newbie why he made his kill. And apparently our outed mason, who is an experienced player himself, was certain he'd die last night.

That would fit, but it would be highly out of character for me. It would fit better with my tendency to explain theory whenever people don't get why certain things may have happened, which I'm somewhat pathologically liable to do.

[Stewie]

Well, some of you might call me an idiot for doing this, but I am going to come out because I think it's the best for the town right now. I am a one-shot vigilante. The reason I am coming out is that with this new information, it is not the best idea to no lynch. There's also whether you trust me or not to consider, but the deal is that we are much better of getting two "lynches" (we decide who I should kill and then lynch someone else, and I kill at night) rather than going no lynch, letting the scum make a kill (probably d8p, which doesn't help us at all) and then being in this exact same situation the next day, but with one town less to decide correctly.

Before I elaborate on who to lynch, I'll remind you that it's late here and I wasn't even going to post in the first place, and let you ponder on this post (there's much to think about). I am hoping to be able to post suspicions by sunday.

[Mr Stoofer]

Commodore, can you set out your case against Seol, please.

[Falcone]

Something Seol said made me go and look up the End of Day Vote Counts. I found this:

viQLes- 7 (ChocoCid, Mr.Stoofer, Seol, Commodore Amazing, ibaesha, Sineish, Stewie)

Sineish- 6 (ibaesha, Mr. Stoofer, Commodore Amazing, d8P, Seol, Stewie)

-On both lynches: Mr Stoofer, Seol, Commodore Amazing, Stewie (& Ibaesha)
-On vIQles but not Sineish: no one
-On Sineish but not vIQLes: d8P
-On neither: Mikeburnfire, Falcone, Nightfall

Seol was absolutely right in saying he wasn't the only one on both townie lynches... Now I admit that those on the vIQles lynch are partly excused by the fact that he really acted very suspicious, but still, it can hardly be a coincidence that so many of the voters are the same. It's also noted that Stewie was the final vote on both lynches. I'm not sure if that's an important ground for suspicion against him tough.

Talking about Stewie, I think his plan has merit. If we lynch/vig at least one scum, we arrive in Day 4 with 5 people, 2 of which are scum, but we'd have some confirmed innocents: d8P, Stewie, and the 3rd mason. At least one of those three will survive in this scenario, and will be around to help lynch the right persons. There is one problem with this plan though: if there's a mafia roleblocker out there, we lose. All this assumes of course that Stewie is telling the truth. He has a plausible role and he hasn't been under serious suspicion all game, so if no one counterclaims, I'm willing to believe him.

[d8P]

I'm always biased in favour of unorthodox play when it gives us an advantage.

Stewie's plan works, assuming for a moment he is a one shot vig.

A mafia roleblocker would not be good for us at all, but I feel relatively certain that there is a mafia rolefinder, because of the death of ibaesha. It seems too much of a coincidence otherwise. I'm also sure that the scum would be too powerful with a rolefinder and a roleblocker, especially since our vig is a one-shot.

Now let's assume he isn't. He has proposed a plan that would involve a lynch Day 3 and a scum kill Night 3. If we lynch incorrectly, that would mean 3 town: 3 scum left on Day 4 = scum win. His plan is a premature lynch-or-lose.

If we lynch...
...and he's telling the truth
Day 3: 8 players -1 lynchee (best case - 2 scum:5 town, worst case - 3 scum:4 town),
Night 3: 7 players -1 vigtarget, -1 scumkill (bc - 1s:4t, wc - 3s:2t scum win)

...and he's lying
Day 3: 8 players -1 lynchee (bc – 2s:5t, wc – 3s:4t),
Night 3: 7 players -1 scumkill (bc - 2s:4t, wc - 3s:3t scum win)

If we nolynch but ask him to kill…
...and he's telling the truth
Day 3: 8 players (3s:5t),
Night 3: 8 players -1 vigtarget, -1 scumkill (bc - 2s:4t, wc - 3s:3t scum win)

...and he's lying
Day 3: 8 players (3 scum:5 town),
Night 3: 8 players -1 scumkill (3s:4t)
Day 4: 7 players. We know he lied and lynch him. (2s:4t)
Night 4: -1 scumkill (2s:3t)

This suggests very strongly that he’s town. I can’t see him proposing a risky plan like the one he has if he were scum. Anyone as experienced as he is wouldn’t risk being asked to prove his ability overnight unless it gave the scum serious advantage which it doesn’t. He did suggest lynching someone today which seems scummy, but scum wouldn’t expect the town to go along with a dangerous play.

But if we no lynch Day 3 and ask him not to target anyone Night 3
Day 3: 8 players (3s:5t)
Night 3: 8 players -1 scumkill (3s:4t)

Assuming he's left alive
Day 4: 7 players -1 lynchee (bc - 2s:4t, wc - 3s:3t)
Night 4: 6 players -1 vigkill, -1 scumkill (bc - 1s:3t, wc - 2s:2t scum win)

Assuming he's killed N3 or lying or doesn't target anyone night 4:
Day 4: 7 players -1 lynchee (bc - 2s:4t, wc - 3s:3t)
Night 4: 6 players -1 scumkill (bc - 2s:3t, wc - 3s:2t scum win)

How can we increase the odds so we get best-case scenarios or at least avoid worst case scenarios? Mass role claim? I was kinda hoping the town has a few power roles left in which case mass claiming is a very bad idea :/ If there are other power roles, though, it would mean the figures above could be wrong, too.

I'm stuck in a WIFOM loop on Stewie.
A. If he's scum he claimed this to encourage us to lynch by making us think we have 3 knwon townies.
B. If he's scum he took a very big risk - the town could challenge him to make a kill tonight instead of lynching (lynching him tomorrow if he doesn't come through).
C. Which makes it seem more likely he's town.
D. Which makes it less risky for him to claim what he did.

Otherwise, that'd be my recommendation - that we test whether he's telling the truth. We'd have to get it right though (OK that would have been the scenario tomorrow without a vig). The only difference is the odds.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, if Stewie knows the name of the other mason, he has a 60% chance of hitting scum, which is exactly the same as no lynch without vig kill (i.e. when we lynch day 4 it'd be 3s:4t, two of whom are confirmed, as I assume I'll no longer be the target tonight).If he doesn't, the odds are worse for us than no lynch, no kill. Of course this doesn't take into account that Stewie might be more likely to target the correct players because of how suspicious they are.

OK. That's enough for now. Thoughts?

[Stewie]

I was kinda hoping that we'd lynch, then I kill, because that way we decide two kills instead of just one, thus increasing the town's control over who is killed. However, if you find it necessary for me to kill in order to trust me, I don't have a problem with that either. It doesn't increase the number of kills the town has, but it clears me, and possibly narrows it down a bit more.

Now, we are in a really tricky situation because we haven't caught any scum yet, which makes a voting analysis close to useless. However, I think I can safely assume that there is at least one scum on every lynch, possibly even two. Now, if we compare both lynches and the people on them, excluding the dead and myself:

viQLes: Mr.Stoofer, Seol, Commodore Amazing
Sineish: Mr. Stoofer, Commodore Amazing, d8P, Seol

The only repeats are Commodore Amazing, Mr. Stoofer, and Seol. I don't think they are all scum, but it's very likely that at least one of them is.

CA random voted Mr. Stoofer, which is a common scum tactic. Later on (post 6 when you display CA's posts only) he says Mr. Stoofer's reasoning for his vote was weak, but didn't even FOS him. Also worth mentioning, CA's vote for Mr. Stoofer was the first, random vote. Then his next post he unvotes, and votes randomly again. Sounds like a weird thing to do, but it's somewhat undestandable if you were voting for your scum buddy.

On the other hand, Mr. Stoofer hasn't voted or FOS'ed CA, and the closest he's been from saying "you are suspicious" is his last post, where he asks CA to outline the reasons for his vote.

That's all I could gather up. In conclusion, I think that CA and Mr. Stoofer are in cahoots, but I don't know which one to vote for. Further, the day is young, so I'll have plenty of time to change my mind, so I don't want to put a vote on, let the mafia somehow pile on the votes, and regret it later.

[Nightfall]

This really isn't nearly money in the bank, but so far I've played two games with CA, who was on both bandwagons this game.

viQLes: Mr.Stoofer, Seol, Commodore Amazing
Sineish: Mr. Stoofer, Commodore Amazing, d8P, Seol

In these past two games, one of them he was scum and the other town.
I remember that in the game he was scum in, he tended to make more
....snappy? comments while trying to provoke a lynch. Durring the Sineish lynch he posted,

FINISH HIM!

I'm not moving my vote.

This lynch is taking too long. Sineish is scumbo. A shademeister. A mafiosisimo. A McBadGuyVer.

I'm not sure if this is normal CA banter , and it just happened to skip a game, or what, but it is starting to remind me of that game we played were he was scum.

[d8P]

I am going to come out because I think it's the best for the town right now <snip> The reason I am coming out is that with this new information, it is not the best idea to no lynch.<snip> but the deal is that we are much better of getting two "lynches" (we decide who I should kill and then lynch someone else, and I kill at night) rather than going no lynch

This *does* work. I should've looked at our odds of success earlier rather than at best/worst case scenarios.

Most likely, 3 out of 8 voters are scum so our voting process is really corrupt, but hopefully our joint ability to analyse the game will mean we can balance it out.

If we vote for 2 people (lynchee and vig target), the odds of one of them being scum is 50% assuming we don't lynch or vig kill me or Stewie. (This improves to 75% if the other mason is also not counted as a target). If this happens, tomorrow it'll be 2s:3t, but with 2 known townies (me and other, or Stewie and other [or some 2 of the 3 of us if other comes out today]).

The odds that both of our targets are scum is 20% (or 30%). Then there'd only be 1 scum tomorrow and 4 townies (of which 2 knowns).

Of course, these odds do not account for factors like how good we are at reading each other or what happens when we go after the two scummiest.

So this is looking very tempting after all. I don't like the 50% plan, but we can talk about who to lynch and vig.

Stewie: I'll let you know if I'm not happy with your target, OK? That way we have the 75%. And congrats. You may have just saved us the game.

[Falcone]

I think we can be fairly confident that Stewie is telling the truth if no one else claims vig, be it one shot or unlimited. Therefore, I don't think it's worth it going no lynch and telling Stewie who to kill, because that will confirm him, yes, but we'd run the risk of losing outright (if we choose the wrong target), and essentially we'd lose the advantage his power gives us. Also, don't forget that we can lynch someone, and then Stewie can decide if he should kill or not, depending on the outcome of the lynch (he must of course kill if the victim is innocent). So if everyone could declare they're not the vigilante, I think we can start to discuss who the two targets should be.

Mikeburnfire, you haven't posted yet today. What's your opinion on this?

[mikeburnfire]

Ack, ACK! Yet another modprod.

I'm still watching this topic, but I've... been busy...

playing "Ratchet:Deadlocked"....

for the last eleven hours...

But I still had every intent on posting something sometime today.