NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[mathcam]

I'm a little surprised that after 7 years on this site, you haven't seen an experienced player post a sincere-townie-looking resignation post as scum, or at least few enough that you're shocked in this particular case. Your bravado definitively declaring who is scum rings pretty empty to me. Do your attempts at bullying actually work on some people?

Yos: Lynching anyone at this point will be pretty informative -- BooKitty might even be slightly higher than usual given her generous contributions to the discussion so far, and Seol's (to me uncharacteristic) behavior this game.

I have a slightly higher than average scum read on her, and slightly higher than average expectation of information from her lynch. We also have no risk of hitting a power role with this lynch, but quite possibly a lynch of a scum making the only possible safe claim at this point. I find it unlikely that we'll find a better lynch opportunity today.

[Green Crayons]

Fake VT claim is "the only possible safe claim at this point"?

[Green Crayons]

Would that, like, make it

not

a safe claim, if it's the "only" safe claim?

[mathcam]

Okay, okay -- saf

est

in the sense that there's no chance of being immediately contradicted.

[Yosarian2]

Yos: Lynching anyone at this point will be pretty informative -- BooKitty might even be slightly higher than usual given her generous contributions to the discussion so far, and Seol's (to me uncharacteristic) behavior this game.

That's pretty vague. How would it be "pretty informative"? If BooKitty flips town, then who on her wagon would you say looks scummy to you?

[Green Crayons]

mathcam, I think LML fits your voting criteria.

(1) Scummy.
(2) Has had a lot of interactions with players. Thus, his flip will be pretty informative.
(3) Will probably claim VT.

-----

Your focus on the fact that she's claimed VT is weird for a few reasons.

(1) Using the rationale of "hey, at least we won't lynch a power role because she claimed VT" alongside "scum's safest claim is VT" -- when you've just stated that Bookitty is

not

safe specifically because she claimed VT -- strikes me as you having reached your conclusion (Bookitty vote) and then finding reasons to justify it.

(2) Also, she claimed VT. Big whoop. I don't see how that's determinative for how we should act in either direction (lynch or not lynch). You've seized on it as signifying Bookitty as a safe lynch (town-perspective wise), but that suggests that you would rally behind

any

lynch, so long as that player was the first to claim VT and you had "a slightly higher than average scum read." And since that's a pretty low threshold, it means that you basically would have been locked in with just about any of the leading bandwagons this Day so long as the suspect was first to claim VT.

[Green Crayons]

Reflecting, I realize my point (1) does not quite capture how you're using "safe."

You: safest in the sense of safe from being counter-claimed
Me: safest in the sense of safe from being lynched


However, this is really parsing language, and the general point I'm trying to get at is there. Your two rationales are not compatible because they attribute the same action -- Bookitty claiming VT -- as being a positive move for both the town and scum.

So, I could see someone seeing Bookitty's VT claim, and then think one of those things: either "hey, at least town won't hit a power role" or "scum would claim VT because no counter-claim potential." But not one and then the other, because both positions view how Bookitty's claim benefits both town and scum, which is just really weird headspace. That is why it looks like you first decided to vote Bookitty, and then came up with a list of reasons why that would be a justifiable course of action.

[Yosarian2]

Also, a question to whoever: have any of the major wagons in this game felt like they experienced more or less resistance than they should have at the time, given the strength of the case and the strength of the cases on competing wagons? I have my thoughts, will be glad to share but don't want to taint the pool before anyone else has a chance to think about/answer this.

Considering how many people have expressed suspicion of him, and how strong the case against him is, it's been remarkably difficult to keep any momentum going on the LML wagon.

Looking back on the thread, it's also a little surprising by how strongly people were defending mafiaSSK, relative to the quality of his posting.

[mathcam]

That's pretty vague. How would it be "pretty informative"? If BooKitty flips town, then who on her wagon would you say looks scummy to you?

a) Granted. b) Because BooKitty has posted detailed thoughts on every player of the game, which upon revelation of her role, will acquire further significance/validity, and c) I don't know -- I haven't thought about it. I would certainly do so upon her (or any other player's) lynch.

mathcam, I think LML fits your voting criteria.
(1) Scummy.
(2) Has had a lot of interactions with players. Thus, his flip will be pretty informative.
(3) Will probably claim VT.

(1) Meh. (2) Agreed. (3) Maybe. But that's a risk, right? There's an inherent risk in bandwagonning more claims -- either we get more VT claims (which doesn't do much in terms of helping us select a target) or we get a power claim, which while exciting, might be disastrous given that they haven't had a single change to use their role.

-----

Your focus on the fact that she's claimed VT is weird for a few reasons.

(1) Using the rationale of "hey, at least we won't lynch a power role because she claimed VT" alongside "scum's safest claim is VT" -- when you've just stated that Bookitty is

not

safe specifically because she claimed VT -- strikes me as you having reached your conclusion (Bookitty vote) and then finding reasons to justify it.

(2) Also, she claimed VT. Big whoop. I don't see how that's determinative for how we should act in either direction (lynch or not lynch). You've seized on it as signifying Bookitty as a safe lynch (town-perspective wise), but that suggests that you would rally behind

any

lynch, so long as that player was the first to claim VT and you had "a slightly higher than average scum read." And since that's a pretty low threshold, it means that you basically would have been locked in with just about any of the leading bandwagons this Day so long as the suspect was first to claim VT.

(1) Come on, you know how it goes. Something might be a good idea for scum to do, but then as soon as scum do it, someone can say "Ah, but if they were scum, why would they do that thing that's good for scum to do?" Every action comes with some built-in WIFOM, and I totally concede the point that declaring the claim absolutely "safe" (which is stronger than I meant it) would be erroneous. But not every action can be WIFOMed out of existence, lest there be no point in making arguments at all. The fact remains that VT is a revealed role, and there are advantages to scum in selecting such a role. The WIFOM argument mitigates, but does not eradicate, these advantages. As to your last clause, I'd say I looked for conclusions for which I could find reasons to justify, and I found one. So in a sense you're right.

(2) Of course it's not determinative. I'm not seizing on anything -- it is a marginal increase to the utility of lynching her over someone else. Whereas some mafia players feel their scum-hunting ability is so great that they have a very high chance of deducing scum on day 1, I hold no such illusions. I am quite happy to take a slight scum read and a slight technical advantage and run with it.

I'd encourage everyone to ask (but not necessarily reveal in thread), what your "percent scum chance" is for each person in the game. BooKitty is one of my highest, and she'd top out at maybe 30, probably plus or minus 5 percent depending on my mood. If you have a score for someone that's over, say, 60-65%, I basically think you're deluding yourself. I just don't believe you can have genuine deduction skills that great. My point is that your description of my perspective in your second point is pretty dead-on (not that I went into this with that mindset, but now that we have a VT claim, that's where I am), that slight scum reads and extra one or two percents of marginal utility do indeed make a difference, and I think it's a pretty reasonable stance. I'm happy to listen to why you think it's wrong.

[mathcam]

Looking back on the thread, it's also a little surprising by how strongly people were defending mafiaSSK, relative to the quality of his posting.

I think this is related to the types of claims that no scum in his right mind would want attract the kind of attention that SSK did by repeatedly defending ill-advised theories. Do you think there's any significance to the fact that Seol disagreed with this stance? There was one post where he directly decided to weigh between whether SSK was scummy or wrong, and came down on the side of scummy. Realizing of course the conflict of interest of reading about my past self, I think this was odd, and my first inching of Seol in the scumminess direction.

[Glork]

Okay, okay -- saf

est

in the sense that there's no chance of being immediately contradicted.

Wrong line of reasoning (I originally wrote "bad" but changed it to "wrong" because that thought isn't inherently bad, it's just not applicable to this situation.)

We are in Day 1 of a large game full of established, tenured, and generally well-respected players. The first claim on Day One isn't likely to live terribly long regardless of what that claim is. If I'm caught as scum D1 in a large, km not claiming VT. I'm going to force a counterclaim to give my team information before I die. Bookitty claiming VT when there's no tangible benefit and no sign that a VT claim will extend your life.

My opinion has nothing to do with getting fooled by a "sincere-townie-looking resignation." It's simply terrible strategy to claim VT if you are the first claim as scum in a game.

[Yosarian2]

I think LML's odds of being scum are over 50%.

Bookitty's are probably around 10%-15%. Usually I'm in favor of lynching claimed VT's, but right now I think she's significantly less likely to be scum then random.

Anyway, mathcam, if you want to make a case on her being scummy (suspicious, more likely scum then random, or whatever), I'd like to hear it. If you think her lynch would be "especially informative", then I'd like to hear what specific information you expect to get from it; in my experience, town usually gets very little information from lynching a VT on day 1, and I don't see this example as being anything special in that regards. If you want to make both arguments, that's fine as well, but right now you haven't really made either case in a convincing way.

[Yosarian2]

(That was in response to Mathcam's #633, which was the last post when I made that post)

[Green Crayons]

@mathcam:

I don't really fault the mechanical aspect of your analysis: (1) scummy + (2) minimal town her if she's town (VT) = good lynch.

(There is some problem with that formulation in the sense that a townsperson is worth more than the sum of her power. Mafia is very much a personality game and all that.)

But more problematic for me is that because you've hit those two criteria (plus the interactions-with-people point), you're ready to call it a day. It suggests that you think lynching the first bandwagoned suspicious player who claims VT, because VT was claimed, is always the right thing to do.

[Yosarian2]

Looking back on the thread, it's also a little surprising by how strongly people were defending mafiaSSK, relative to the quality of his posting.

I think this is related to the types of claims that no scum in his right mind would want attract the kind of attention that SSK did by repeatedly defending ill-advised theories. Do you think there's any significance to the fact that Seol disagreed with this stance? There was one post where he directly decided to weigh between whether SSK was scummy or wrong, and came down on the side of scummy. Realizing of course the conflict of interest of reading about my past self, I think this was odd, and my first inching of Seol in the scumminess direction.

I don't have a strong read on SSK in either direction; I suspect he posts in a fashion much like that as either alignment.

That being said, I thought the strong defenses several people were making of him were kind of strange; he certainly didn't do anything that seemed especially townish, and the degree to which people were defending him from a quite early stage based on no obvious town tells seemed very odd. I commented on it at the time, actually; if you remember, that was one of the reasons for my early-game VitimanR vote. He wasn't the only one to do it, though.

[mathcam]

My opinion has nothing to do with getting fooled by a "sincere-townie-looking resignation."

For the record, I was not accusing you of such. That was in response to ABR being shocked.

Yos: Well, that's a high enough percent that you have convinced me to spend the time to go through his posts again.

... you think lynching the first bandwagoned suspicious player who claims VT, because VT was claimed, is always the right thing to do.

Not at all. Related to what you very astutely point out in your parenthetical remark (which I agree with and, incidentally, is the biggest self-doubt I have about my BooKitty vote -- disposing of an active player has its own detriments, regardless of scumminess), every game has its own nuances. Relatedly, in this game, I think there will be a significant benefit to ending this day. I haven't done a count, but I suspect that the percentage of players who have posted substantively since page...20?...is ...sub-optimal. I'd rather lynch slightly-better-than-randomly now than drag on for another week plus extensions when everyone starts panicking about deadlines. So I think in *this* instance, and not at all in *all* instances, is that the right play.

That said, I'll take another look at LML (and maybe PJ, though maybe not as I like watching ABR get worked up). In the meantime, people should feel free to lynch BooKitty without me.

[Glork]

Right, I know you weren't talking directly to me; I was merely giving my opinion on the matter. I actually decided to vote PJ over Bookitty before Bookitty's last large post and claim. Looking back at the Seol stuff, I wasn't really convinced that he was scummy per se. I just didn't like his theory-based argument and wanted to see a bit more from him. That potential bit of information went away with his replacement, but I've been by and large pretty fine with Bookitty's contributions.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Listen to Glork when he tells you to unvote Bookitty and vote PJ.

[Bookitty]

I don't remember who asked me for my scumreads (I have the feeling it was MrBuddyLee, but I don't have time currently to go back and check). These are going to be paraphrases; I am on a deadline. The info on specifically why is probably in my previous PBPAs.

• PJ - obviously my top scumread. Everyone is scum, he has no townreads. He's unwilling to give any of his precious info to town. He's afraid of LML but the VCA gave him courage to jump on him. Timing of jumps is just odd.
  chamber - this is weak for me. I go back and forth on it; I haven't played with chamber that I remember and I can't get any handle on his playstyle. Some things looked really scummy to me but I can't actually recall them now (I'm sure it's in my PBPA, though, for later.)
  Untrod Tripod - jumping from one wagon to another (not scummy in itself) but with no reasons. Jumps in to defend people on playstyle in a way that looked arbitrary and not organic.
  LML - I see the points made against LML and I can agree with them in part. Also, LML has no scum on his wagon right now (IMO) which makes him way more likely scum for me. The person I thought was scummy (PJ) jumped to me as soon as that wagon became viable. I would sheep Yos if I weren't voting PJ.
  Undo - Just awful posting. I kind of feel like he asked me for content and then voted me for thinking too many people were town. I don't get the sense he even read what I wrote; he just skimmed it for a chance to vote me.
  STD - This is contingent. If LML and UT are scum, he's not (I think). He's my weakest scumread outside of chamber, whom i just don't have meta for. Actually, my independent read on UT says that STD is town. Don't rely on this though without a flip from LML or UT.

I've said who I thought was town (I've played with both Yos-town and Glork-town and this is them) and if I don't list someone, I don't have a firm read.

Mathcam is not scum. We need a lynch soon. His point about protecting the powerroles is right on too.

Sorry this is short but I'm playing catch-up on both Mafia and on my actual work.

[Sotty7]

Sotty, you really don't belong on this bandwagon. Out, please.

Nope. I'm not lynching PJ and I find Bookitty pretty scummy all in all. I could be convinced to vote LML in a compromise but I'm not moving my vote off BooKitty when the wagon is actually gaining traction.

I'm shocked that you think that Bookitty scum would amiably resign herself to town players lynching her because "it would yield information as she's interacted with everyone". And just claim VT like that. That's nonsensical. Keep scumhunting, keep the day going, and lynch someone else, like PJ.

Didn't Rainbow Dash do the same thing in the Mountainous game that just finished? She basically became "resigned" to her lynch which pretty much resulted in me backing off her cause I'm a sucker. I'm not falling for that same play twice in a row. I don't feel any of Boo's attacks have felt genuine when it comes to her scum picks. Her reason for voting PJ is pretty bad when you weigh her thoughts of LML next to it.

Just because she claimed VT doesn't mean I'm going to unvote.

[chamber]

chamber - this is weak for me. I go back and forth on it; I haven't played with chamber that I remember and I can't get any handle on his playstyle. Some things looked really scummy to me but I can't actually recall them now (I'm sure it's in my PBPA, though, for later.)

This is a pretty big scumtell for me, but at this point I'm so wrapped in confirmation bias, can someone else confirm that they see it?

[Yosarian2]

chamber - this is weak for me. I go back and forth on it; I haven't played with chamber that I remember and I can't get any handle on his playstyle. Some things looked really scummy to me but I can't actually recall them now (I'm sure it's in my PBPA, though, for later.)

This is a pretty big scumtell for me, but at this point I'm so wrapped in confirmation bias, can someone else confirm that they see it?

My first impression, reading that, was "townie trying to get their last words down in writing before they get lynched, without enough time to do a re-reading first". Why, what did you see?

[VitaminR]

I sort of agree with ABR re Bookitty's recent posts, though perhaps not with the quite same degree of certainty. But she comes across as town to me in the claim and subsequent posts.

[chamber]

chamber - this is weak for me. I go back and forth on it; I haven't played with chamber that I remember and I can't get any handle on his playstyle. Some things looked really scummy to me but I can't actually recall them now (I'm sure it's in my PBPA, though, for later.)

This is a pretty big scumtell for me, but at this point I'm so wrapped in confirmation bias, can someone else confirm that they see it?

My first impression, reading that, was "townie trying to get their last words down in writing before they get lynched, without enough time to do a re-reading first". Why, what did you see?

Not remembering the reason you suspect someone. In my experience you are significantly more likely to forget reasons you had to make up than reasons you actually felt and reached yourself.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Perhaps I am VERY old school, but I don't remember EVER playing in a game with a day-talking Mafia. Ever. This may be my memory failing me, but I seriously cannot remember a time. Since this is Oldy Mafia, and I assume that Day Talking mafia is a new construct, what makes anyone think that it would be in this game? It's an odd speculation on everyone's behalf, and when people have too much information, there's generally a good reason (cough, scum)

...FOS whoever it was that asked [MafiaSSK] why he thought there was no daytalk...

Hi!

Daytalk has become increasingly common, and there is in fact an explicitly Normal role called an Encryptor which allows Daytalk while limiting it to the span of the role's life.

Browsing MafiaSSK most recently completed games, Mini #1543 had unlimited Mafia Daytalk (completed April 10, 2014) and Mafia in the Land of Fantasy had a Mafia Encryptor (completed April 7, 2014). He also recently finished modding a game with unlimited Mafia Daytalk (completed April 8, 2014), and a Micro Game with a Mafia Encryptor (completed January 7, 2014).

Given MafiaSSK's very recent experiences with Mafia Daytalk (to the point of often using it in his own games), his unnecessary assumption that the Mafia in

this

game does not have Daytalk stuck out to me.

~

Concerning whether Patrick would implement Mafia Daytalk, scanning his "recent" games he did allow Daytalk in Invitational #11: Pick Your Poison 5 (run in 2010) and a Mafia Encryptor in Speed Mafia (run in 2011).

2.)

Responding generally to MrBuddyLee's Post 616, your summaries of my suspicions are fair (though I have not voted all of them). I also see some potential connections between a few them but am trying to stay away from mentally linking people until I'm working from flips.

My strongest suspicions are Bookitty, LoudmouthLee (although I am wavering on that lately after trying to meta his play a couple nights ago), and mathcam (replacing MafiaSSK).

I feel a bit disillusioned by both VitaminR and Glork's play -- they both seem to be purposefully talking past me and my points (and I will grant that the fact that they both claim to suspect me does neither of them favors), but they are not particularly strong suspicions, and not who I would prefer to lynch right now. To some extent my suspicion of them may be attributable to annoyance with their play. And also to some extent, I think I am already

somewhat

mentally associating them as having strange (potentially scummy) defenses of players I think are scummy and so I am more skeptical of their posts as a result. (And yes, I did just say I try to avoid this).

Concerning the possible agenda with Bookitty's PBPA, I will freely admit that I was primarily concerned with her comments towards me (and reading it again just now, I still get the feeling she was looking for ways to take stabs at me). I actually agree that her comments towards Save the Dragons and potential deflection from LoudmouthLee looks somewhat like an agenda in her posting (as Save the Dragons described in Post 617). Most of her PBPA is just a description of game events (and who is voting who) with subtle indications of her thoughts or implications, suggesting that she is putting in work to look Town. Beyond that, it is difficult to draw conclusions. I can see undo's argument that Bookitty might be overly defensive of VitaminR, but that does not strike me as an agenda she had in mind while writing her posts, especially given the relative lack of pressure on VitaminR.

3.)

I do not think MafiaSSK's replace-out was Town. He was under lingering pressure with three votes, I had just asked him a couple pointed questions that he may have rather avoided, and it was fairly obvious that he was going to be under more pressure if he did not step it up. Charitably it is null.