Mafiascum.net

(this post inspired by a post by Frogsterking, but directed to everyone, and about a somewhat heavier / less light-hearted topic than normal)

In post 1371, Frogsterking wrote:I view both of these posts as the long and anguished cries of an injured wolf, filling our afternoon sky.

Actually, this statement hit me really uncomfortably close to home.

Part of the reason I play Mafia is to get more understanding of real life interactions. If you're worried about people trying to intentionally deceive you, or want practice at defending yourself when you're falsely accused, or want to see how effective various techniques are for persuading someone of something false, it would be really unethical to do that sort of thing in a real-life situation, or about something that matters. Mafia gives us an opportunity to try out this sort of thing in a controlled environment, where we're all (or should be) playing to win, but nothing bad happens if we lose. So Mafia is, in a way, a model of the real world.

Frogsterking's statement above reminded me of a behaviour all too commonly seen in real life (especially in the case of politics): people who decide that they have such-and-such a view on some particular issue, then try their best to rationalise it, cherry-picking evidence that they think favours it, even to the extent of coming up with long and bizarre conspiracy theories when they can't justify their statement in a simpler way. When you confront these people with evidence that their view may be wrong, they tend to deflect it, or weigh a tiny bit of evidence in their favour up against a huge amount against and claim theirs is larger. When you undermine part of their reasoning, they'll insist that the rest is still correct, even though its premises may have been undermined. If you disprove the entirety of their logic, they'll eventually just say that they're ignoring you and that they're right regardless (especially if they see you as "opposed" to them). I don't know of any effective techniques for actually getting these people to change their mind, or even to start reasoning in good faith to help you come to a decision if you're undecided or there's conflicting evidence. ("You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.")

So in effect, the conditions are here for Mafia to show us something that could really improve real life; this sort of "stubborn, unpersuadable voter" behaviour is almost certainly caused by the exact same thing that causes a townie to get into the sort of illogical, unreasoned tunnel that Frogster is in at the moment. That means that if we can figure out a way to stop a player tunneling (short of something absolutely undeniable, like a flip), the same technique would probably be really valuable in real life, maybe fixing many of the world's major problems by allowing opposite sides of the political spectrum to sit down and actually come to a joint conclusion rather than just butting heads endlessly. That's something that would be more important than any Mafia game.

As such: does anyone know of a way to talk players out of a tunnel? I've tried and failed in the past; even attempting it as confirmed town (so that my motives couldn't be questioned), I couldn't get anywhere (and lost that game because the last two townies were deathtunnelling each other and scum nightkilled me). Some way to accomplish this would be really valuable, both in terms of helping towns that are stuck in Mafia games, and more importantly, with ramifications for real-world interactions too.

I was going to be a smartass and ask if you'd like some cheese with all of that wine..

then I realized you already had the cheese too.

In real life I'd suggest maybe trying to turn their thought process on them to the point where they are struggling to cope with the cognitive dissonance of their beliefs
I don't know how that would work here though

i think cfj will be an extremely high-info lunch. but i think raya is by far the most likely to be scum, so id still prefer to lunch there. we can dine on cfj tomorrow.

In post 1378, Tayl0r Swift wrote:i think cfj will be an extremely high-info lunch. but i think raya is by far the most likely to be scum, so id still prefer to lunch there. we can dine on cfj tomorrow.

hmm I read this as sort of scummy in setting one person up after the other.

do u really think ts1989 flips red at this stage in the game

Ehh, not likely in my opinion.

In post 1381, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:Ehh, not likely in my opinion.

what about at a later or earlier stage in the game? would i flip red on day 3?

Well that’s a “unique” term to use
Had you not also said dine I’d have assumed that a typo

• Is Raya just really busy?

In post 1355, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:

Spoiler:

In post 1353, callforjudgement wrote:

In post 1351, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:For the excercise,
I would go with raya + CFJ. if CFJ is town then look at gamma/ looker/italiano.

The mention of Italiano here really worries me. If Walter is town, then his actions toDay indicate a strong townread on Italiano (why would you go along with letting him stay unconfirmed if you think there's a decent chance he could be scum, when you're in a position to intervene?). I can understand why Walter would defer to Italiano if he thinks Italiano is almost certainly town, but not otherwise.

Instead, Walter's basically just listed a list of "scumreads that are widely held", apparently without actually thinking about them. These reads don't seem particularly consistent with Walter's actions, but are easily explainable as a scum Walter wanting to keep his options open.

I have a very paranoid reason to suspect italiano may be fakeclaiming. I cannot reveal why at this time though.
You will also note that it is the least likeliest of people out there.
pedit I am with frog on the vig part.

If you want, we can remove you and Italiano from this game and have you play a secret ultra-mini with yourselves. I don't see what use either of you are being to anyone else.

In post 1379, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:

In post 1378, Tayl0r Swift wrote:i think cfj will be an extremely high-info lunch. but i think raya is by far the most likely to be scum, so id still prefer to lunch there. we can dine on cfj tomorrow.

hmm I read this as sort of scummy in setting one person up after the other.

I agree with removing Raya. VOTE: Raya36

• Meh.

cathcing up

In post 1339, Frogsterking wrote:I think NM was killed because scum thought he was a pr since he didn't say that much.

i think trying to guess is a waste of effort. but a few posts later you go off on the deep end with a theory. ho hum...

but frogsters post at raya explaing why the defend - to deflect - that is a possibility

frogster then goes off the deep end again with how the scum are intereacting. and that was a waste of time too

In post 1352, Nosferatu wrote:without not mafia im losing my motivation to play

does anyone want to fake claim a result?

is the plan that if enough people fake claim, eventually one scum is going to actually claim?
[quote="In I have a very paranoid reason to suspect italiano may be fakeclaiming. I cannot reveal why at this time though.
[/quote]
walter sticking italiano in their (long) list of scum is worrying. i could maybe see a case where italiano is town and walter is scum, but not the other way around.

In post 1360, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 842, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 832, Datisi wrote:

Votecount 1.13

shellyc(5)

~ Tayl0r Swift(42), Frogsterking(46), ItalianoVD(68), WaltertheDunce10(73), geraintm(70)

WaltertheDunce10(4)

~ Raya36(57), Not_Mafia(25), callforjudgement(68), Nosferatu(83)

ItalianoVD(2)

~ RCEnigma(66), shellyc(70)

geraintm(2)

~ Gamma Emerald(80), Looker(55)


Not Voting (0):

With 13 alive it takes 7 to eliminate.

Day 1 deadline is in (expired on 2020-09-06 11:18:30)

MOD REMINDERS

• prodding Not_Mafia
  
• looking for a replacement for shellyc

Out of these I’d rather we come back to Geraint. I’d also be okay with Italiano, but Shelly and Walter are townreads (at least, I was townreading Banana)

In post 843, Gamma Emerald wrote:

In post 836, Looker wrote:

• Gamma Emerald asked for a votecount and here it is; so who are you going to vote?

---

• Why did CFJ ask me to move my vote but not RCEnigma? Why are players ignoring RCEnigma?

Out of the two main options rn I think I lean towards voting Walter. I think while the Shelly/Banana slot isn’t doing much now what it did before felt quite towny, in the sense that it felt genuine and pure.

This is what I'm talking about
I gave a similar evaluation of my willingness to vote certain slots here, at least as I see it

then i either didn't notice them/didn't think they stood out enough to comment on them, or maybe i didn't class them in the same weaselly posts where the person is asking to be persuaded to join a wagon. that is worse than when you say at some point there are 2 people you want to vote for but arent sure. that could be evasive (and if there is a pattern of it then i will note it)

frogter post 1363 - they read an awful lot in someone moving their initial random vote

taylor's post 1378 - i can sorta see their own thinking here

In post 1379, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:

In post 1378, Tayl0r Swift wrote:i think cfj will be an extremely high-info lunch. but i think raya is by far the most likely to be scum, so id still prefer to lunch there. we can dine on cfj tomorrow.

hmm I read this as sort of scummy in setting one person up after the other.

this though looks like double standards. callng out taylor for wanting to lynch two people in a row, but walter is itching to lynch taylor after one of raya/cfj gets lynched. if the lynch goes through on raya or cfj and they turn up innocent, then i am marking walter down for this

italiano votes for Frogster at the very end. after spending so much time talking about CFJ, they hint they have loads more they want to do - ask three pointless questions to three people and then vote frogster. i don't get it....

we are still ages away from the end of the day so i dont feel the need to be considering if i really want to move my vote from the person who i thought looked terribly scummy earlier today. but it is really hard, you are all making it hard

sorry, messed up my quoting

In post 1385, ItalianoVD wrote:VOTE: Frogsterking

I can't possibly see Frogsterking acting this way if he knows I'm town. Tunnelling may not be all that hard to fake, but this sort of utterly illogical tunnelling, based on a fantasy gamestate that makes no sense and exists only in Frogsterking's mind, is almost impossible to fake; I don't think it's possible to get your mind into that place if you have proof from your role PM that you're wrong. Frogsterking's behaviour is very anti-town (in that it doesn't actually help with finding anyone else as scum, and doesn't help Frogsterking get sensible reads either, and means that Frogsterking will probably end up losing the game by voting for the wrong player near late-game due to having no understanding of the actual gamestate). But it isn't something that I think can come from scum.

As a consequence, I'm seeing Frogsterking as pretty much certain town, and other players should be seeing Frogsterking as "town unless CFJ is scum, and probably still town even then".

sorry, CFJ. you just quoted italiano and then go off on Frogster? Im confused

I'm trying to explain to Italiano why Frogsterking is almost certainly town (and thus his vote will be more useful elsewhere).

oh, it wasn't obvious because you said "frogster acting this way" when the action you were quoting wasn't theirs

In post 1376, Frogsterking wrote:I was going to be a smartass and ask if you'd like some cheese with all of that wine..

then I realized you already had the cheese too.

I don't believe what CFJ is saying, I think CFJ wants Italiano to keep voting me and is realizing the more he tells Italiano to trust me the more suspicious Italiano becomes.

In post 1385, ItalianoVD wrote:VOTE: Frogsterking

In post 1388, callforjudgement wrote:

In post 1385, ItalianoVD wrote:VOTE: Frogsterking

I can't possibly see Frogsterking acting this way if he knows I'm town. Tunnelling may not be all that hard to fake, but this sort of utterly illogical tunnelling, based on a fantasy gamestate that makes no sense and exists only in Frogsterking's mind, is almost impossible to fake; I don't think it's possible to get your mind into that place if you have proof from your role PM that you're wrong. Frogsterking's behaviour is very anti-town (in that it doesn't actually help with finding anyone else as scum, and doesn't help Frogsterking get sensible reads either, and means that Frogsterking will probably end up losing the game by voting for the wrong player near late-game due to having no understanding of the actual gamestate). But it isn't something that I think can come from scum.

As a consequence, I'm seeing Frogsterking as pretty much certain town, and other players should be seeing Frogsterking as "town unless CFJ is scum, and probably still town even then".

In post 1390, callforjudgement wrote:I'm trying to explain to Italiano why Frogsterking is almost certainly town (and thus his vote will be more useful elsewhere).

The above was what I intended to quote in the post below:

In post 1392, Frogsterking wrote:

In post 1376, Frogsterking wrote:I was going to be a smartass and ask if you'd like some cheese with all of that wine..

then I realized you already had the cheese too.

I don't believe what CFJ is saying, I think CFJ wants Italiano to keep voting me and is realizing the more he tells Italiano to trust me the more suspicious Italiano becomes.

In post 1308, ItalianoVD wrote:@Frogsterking: Could you tell me why you went after geraintm so hard for suspecting you on Day 1, but did not even look Banana’s way when he voted for you in 218. I would think you would have said something to Banana, especially given how hard you did interact with geraintm for 769.

In post 1385, ItalianoVD wrote:VOTE: Frogsterking

Because being voted is not universally emotionally triggering for me, Banana may have voted for me but he did not trigger me, geraintm did without voting me, probably because I was stressed that particular morning for other reasons and geraintm is very blunt. It was not that geraintm suspected me or voted me that was triggering, it was the way he framed my actions.

By comparison my scum read on Banana was not particularly emotionally charged and it appears you read this as a buss. I believe your observation that the interactions were different is accurate, however I don't believe they are AI.

In post 381, ItalianoVD wrote:Okay so what’s happening with 334 What’s a spoiler chat?

Aight I think Frog is scum and it looks like the interaction between him and Nosferatu is scum theatre. Frog’s reason is weak and forced. Nosferatu’s reaction to that weak forced case also seems weak and forced. That’s why my vote is there and will probably stay there. You voting for yourself is never a good idea imo.

I’m feeling a little off about callforjudgment. Very townie. Very beautiful and perfect posts. The best posts in the history of our country. You’ve never seen posts like these before. So beautiful.

Townies

Walter
SJReaver
Banana
RCEnigma
Raya
Not_Mafia

Scum

Frogsterking
Nosferatu
callforjudgment

Null and/or no read

sordros
Gamma
geraintm

I have to look back over Gamma and geraintm to get a better read. Still no idea what Sordros is doing here.

In post 1320, ItalianoVD wrote:

In post 1314, Frogsterking wrote:

In post 1308, ItalianoVD wrote:@Frogsterking: Could you tell me why you went after geraintm so hard for suspecting you on Day 1, but did not even look Banana’s way when he voted for you in 218. I would think you would have said something to Banana, especially given how hard you did interact with geraintm for 769.

I was on tilt that morning.

Okay, I guess I should say why DIDN’T you go after Banana the same way you did geraintm?

In post 1366, ItalianoVD wrote:@Raya: Your responses to my questions seem very townie looking at face value. I can’t know if this is your meta or not. Why do you feel it was okay to sacrifice shelly?

@callforjudgment: Why did you kill Not_Mafia?

@Frogsterking: Why did you not interact with the Banana/shelly slot the entire Day 1? And why was banana/shelly the better sacrifice than your other partner?

I'm wondering if you're trying to put a range on my scum behavior, for example at first on D1 you think I might interact with my partner a lot, so you suspect me + Nos, then you internalize that this behavior is not algnmemt indicative for me. Now on D2 you look for people I've not interacted with very much instead, so you suspect me + Banana.

I son't like italiano's vote. It seems random.

In post 1398, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:I son't like italiano's vote. It seems random.

Hm? Can you expand on this?