Mini 49 TRATEOTU GAME OVER (Panic.)

[PolarBoy]

That was not a page-long oration. That was a list, followed by a normal size tirade that appeared much longer than it was because it was padded up with so many quotes. Jasonpingpong, did you actually attempt to read it? Or were you just looking for an excuse to get someone lynched? Or did you understand it fully, see the workings of genius, and become afraid that such a person may be hunting you?

[mathcam]

I'm a theoretician, mith. I'm constantly assessing how the game

should

be played. Of course people make errors or look suspicious or even, as you suggest, use speech patterns that the rest of us can analyze for nuances of mafianess. And if this wasn't the case, mafia would probably be boring. But if not practically than at least theoretically, there certainly must be some better strategy than "wait for someone to mess up." What if everyone played this way? The game would be horrible. mith, what do you do if you're the first to post in a game?

I only said you were content with random voting because I proposed a plan which I felt and still feel is better than a random vote, and you maligned

it

while ignoring the other votes. There's no way my vote is

worse

than random, and there's a chance it's better.

I don't think *all* out-of-game reasoning is stupid. I believe it's against the spirit of the game. But I think it's clear that I don't think it's all unfounded, since I specified between the ordinary version, and the Crap version.

Quite simply, no you didn't. Your quote exactly was

I'll throw out a vote: mathcam just to discourage out-of-game reasoning, particularly Crap out-of-game reasoning.

perhaps emphasizing one over the other, but you specifically said you were voting for me to discourage out-of-game reasoning. Perhaps it's against the spirit of the game, and pointing this fact out to me would likely convince me of it. Rest assured, however, that I am not discouraged by your votes. And if you continue to vote for people to dissuade them from disagreeing with you, then I think you'll find your strategy is in fact

worse

than random: It's just as easy for a mafia to shut up and listen then to embroil themselves in a lively debate.

As for the game, I'm pretty hapy with my vote on Leo, and I'm fairly convinced about mith's innocence.

Cam

[Foolster41]

*Takes out some playdough and tastes it*
Yumm....

[mith]

Of course people make errors or look suspicious or even, as you suggest, use speech patterns that the rest of us can analyze for nuances of mafianess. And if this wasn't the case, mafia would probably be boring.

Yes.

But if not practically than at least theoretically, there certainly must be some better strategy than "wait for someone to mess up."

Not necessarily. But it's not just "wait for someone to mess up", as you summarized. It's never a big thing. Random votes can be a part of it, though; maybe not as useful as other things, but random votes generally *aren't* completely random (some people probably do do properly random ones, and they're pointless, but most people pick someone, and if they're Mafia, Cop, Doc, whatever, it's probably for some minor subconscious reason, or possibly some less-that-subconscious one).

Regardless, I've bashed random voters before. It's just the way some people play at first. *~shrug~*

But...

What if everyone played this way? The game would be horrible. mith, what do you do if you're the first to post in a game?

But even *I* don't just wait around for things. Sometimes I post speculation on roles, sometimes I pick a random fight with someone to get people talking (hint hint). Sometimes it's meant to look like just me griping, sometimes it really *is* just me griping. It's all part of the game. *~shrug~*

I only said you were content with random voting because I proposed a plan which I felt and still feel is better than a random vote, and you maligned it while ignoring the other votes.

I picked on it *first* because it got me two votes, and was being pushed as a lynching method; much more likely to get to a quick lynch than random votes.

And, while you may feel it is better, *I* don't. If my little attempt at actually quantifying it is worth anything, it looks *worse* than random, to me.

perhaps emphasizing one over the other, but you specifically said you were voting for me to discourage out-of-game reasoning.

Perhaps I could have worded it better, but discourage does not necessarily equal "all is bad". Discourage means I think there is too much of it.

Rest assured, however, that I am not discouraged by your votes. And if you continue to vote for people to dissuade them from disagreeing with you, then I think you'll find your strategy is in fact worse than random: It's just as easy for a mafia to shut up and listen then to embroil themselves in a lively debate.

*~shrug~* You may not be. Perhaps, though, it will encourage people to look for these types of things, that perhaps look good on the surface, but aren't really. Mafia love to do things like that. And, if enough people catch onto them, it won't be worth it to you to try them as Mafia. Maybe you'll come up with better ideas.

And if you continue to vote for people to dissuade them from disagreeing with you, then I think you'll find your strategy is in fact worse than random: It's just as easy for a mafia to shut up and listen then to embroil themselves in a lively debate.

I think you need to go retake probability (or take it) or something. You've *got* to stop posting things like "I think this is better" and "I think this is worse", with nothing better than "well, maybe some GLers kill other GLers" and "maybe Mafia will shut up". Mafia *don't* usually stay completely silent; perhaps they will in future meta-game goodness, but when that time comes I'll be voting differently too.

What I find more interesting than this lack of actual fact is that you've once again slipped something in that gets you off: first the "let's lynch GLers" bit, then the "well, Mafia are silent and won't debate". Very subtle.

As for my vote, though, I'm considering switching to jasonpingpong. Still can't decide if he's being random-newbie, or just trying for quick lynch. I'll think about it and decide on something when I'm not so tired.

[bane221]

Answer: Green.

(Question: What is my favorite play-dough flavor)

[Kerplunk]

The debate between mith and math are interesting. but now mith actual accuses someone of something in-game. And with quoting mathcam:

There's no way my vote is worse than random, and there's a chance it's better.

I'll

vote: jasonpingpong

[mathcam]

It's all part of the game. *~shrug~*

Agreed, and I haven't taken anything personally, except of course the comments that you meant for me to take personally, probably merely with the intent of provoking me. In any case, okay, lots of *shrug*s...I guess I kind of live with that. However,

I think you need to go retake probability (or take it) or something. You've *got* to stop posting things like "I think this is better" and "I think this is worse"...

When I say things like "I think this is better," it's because I think it's better, not because I've explicitly calculated the probability that it is correct the play. If I

had

worked something out to be certainly stronger, I would say so. And by "better", all I mean is better than random. I'm always up for following a strategy that's better than random-bandwagonning on day one. But really, I'm surprised to hear you think that any of these strategies can be evaluated in such a probabilistic fashion. What

is

the probability that mafia stay quiet on day one as opposed to entering into an argument? I'm not sure what probability course teaches that, but know that as far as regular probability goes, my abilities are certainly in tact.

To others: Random votes are doing little good for anyone any more. Either agree with one of the two "bandwagons" or present an argument why we should do something else. Just because mith and I are yelling at each other doesn't mean you have to stop playing the game.

Cam

[Leonidas]

To others: Random votes are doing little good for anyone any more. Either agree with one of the two "bandwagons" or present an argument why we should do something else.

Scummy - there are more than two bandwagons right now, including your own. Both your bandwagon (vicious figures of speech - twice already) and that of jasonpingpong (fast lynch) have more merit than our OGMUPOTGL (Oh My God You Play On The GL) ones at this time.

But since you insist on focusing on the 'leading' bandwagons - why don't you join us?

unvote: Mith
vote: Mathcam

[Darkblade]

Vote: Polarboy

Mostly gut feeling stemming from Polarboy's post about jasonpingpong

[mathcam]

A person with one vote on them is not a bandagon, Leonidas, and my saying so is hardly scummy. Even two is pushing it, and that's why I put the word bangwagon in quotes in that post. Whether I'm up there or not, I still encourage people to give up their singleton votes and vote for someone with more, or argue as to an alternative plan.

Cam

[shelper]

After re-reading the thread *thank god its only two pages*, the only one that strikes me as out of place is jason.
Jason seems to be to be a bit eager for a lynch, hopping on the nearest bandwagon to try and blend in.

unvote: darkblade
vote: jasonpingpong

[Darkblade]

Yet again, most newbies are like that anyways, town or scum

[PolarBoy]

The two people that are bugging me most right now are bane221 and foolster41,(And not because both of their names have extraneous numbers) who have posted twice, once to random vote, and again to make comments about play-dough(Read, pretend not to lurk).

Seeing as Foolster has a vote already I think it will do more to

Unvote, Vote: Foolster41

On another note:

Day 1 has started, Orbiting is a little deader than she was. No deadline. 6 to lynch. Yes, 6. Poor Orbiting is dead.

And then this:

Mostly Dead, still partying
Orbiting - can still talk and vote.

I find this ludicrously confusing. On the one hand we have a 6 to lynch vote, which means ten or eleven voting players, but on the other hand Orbiting can still vote, which means there are twelve voting players. It doesn't add up, unless:

A.) Orbiting's vote doesn't actually matter. For instance a person could have six votes and if orbiting's was one of them then it would take a seventh to lynch.

B.) Someone else's vote doesn't matter, see above.

C.) Someone's vote counts double. That doesn't seem like it would be six to lynch though, as the double-voter doesn't need to be voting someone to create a six-vote-bandwagon.

D.) The normal rules of mafia have been temporarily suspended so that a simple majority is not needed to lynch. Perhaps there are six mafia members and the only way we can lynch one is if the entire good side of the town votes that person(Ridiculously far-fetched, I know)

Anyway I thought this was odd, does anybody else have any thoughts on it? Does the mod have anything to say?

[Foolster41]

That is odd about orbiting. I think the last option is the most likly, barring the part about 6 mafia, I doubt it. Then again, if there are two families of three that's not too unresonible I suppose because the two families aare going after each other as much as the town.

Wow that whole Mathcam/Mith thing is quite confusing and I'm not sure I understand it. All I know is we should be focusing on getting some people to talk about their roles. Chatting and trying to find nuances is well and good, but it's going to be far more effective to use voting power to squeeze out the bogus role claims. On that note, I'm going to

unvote: Dourgrim

and

vote: mith

not because I want to kill him, but because I want to get to a role claim so we can find some scum, and he seems most scummy to me because of that rather long and confusing conversation with mathcam. (

Fos:Mathcam

too while i'm at it.)
also, Mith you were talking with other players in the game? I'm not sure, but Isn't PMing among the town not allowed? The whole point is the town hears everything you say. Maybe you'd be so kind as to repeat any
game-related conversation here on the bord.

[Foolster41]

By the way, could we have another vote count, werebear?

[mith]

Whee, more fun.

vote: mith not because I want to kill him, but because I want to get to a role claim so we can find some scum, and he seems most scummy to me because of that rather long and confusing conversation with mathcam.

Rule number 1: Do not vote for people that you do not think are suspicious.

I could go into a long tirade about why fishing for role claims is silly, if you like. It's been done in numerous games. But strike one is not just suggesting it. It's suggesting it *after* it's already been mentioned in this game's debate that it's a stupid idea.

Strike 2 is for the second part. After claiming it's "not because I want to kill him" (read: I don't *really* think he's scum), he then says I'm scummy for a long conversation. Look guys, I'm sorry I talk a lot, but there is nothing at all confusing about any of my posts. And it's certainly not a reason to vote for me or think I'm scummy, I do it every single game I'm in. Plus, he FOSes mathcam in the same breath. I could understand if he thought one of us was being deliberately misleading to try to get a quick lynch or to try to sow discord or whatever, but you can't really have it both ways (and no, I'm not saying that two Mafia *couldn't* argue like mad, but I've sure never seen it done successfully).

also, Mith you were talking with other players in the game? I'm not sure, but Isn't PMing among the town not allowed? The whole point is the town hears everything you say. Maybe you'd be so kind as to repeat any
game-related conversation here on the bord.

Not a third strike, but all I can say is: huh? I can't even find something in my posts that could be taken that way, and I certainly didn't say that.

And, of course, the third strike. Classic, really. Gets accused of not posting anything with content, and the very next post is this long (for anyone but me) thing where he's seemingly oblivious to the fact that he's just been voted for, and posts a bunch of nonsense to make it look like he's participating.

Vote: Foolster41

, y0.

[Werebear]

THE NEW BUT NOT ENTIRELY IMPROVED SECOND VOTE COUNT OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE GAME

Mith -

3

(Orbiting, jasonpingpong, Foolster41)
Foolster41 -

2

(Polarboy. mith)
jasonpingpong -

2

(Kerplunk, Shelper)
Leonidas -

1

(mathcam)
mathcam -

1

(Leonidas)
Kerplunk -

1

(Bane221)
PolarBoy -

1

(Darkblade)

Not Voting - Dourgrim

[PolarBoy]

er...Ok, so there wasn't

already

a vote on Foolster41 when I voted him, because Kerplunk had moved his vote without formally unvoting so I didn't notice. Oops.

[Orbiting]

Rule number 1: Do not vote for people that you do not think are suspicious.

On day 1, isn't everybody suspicious? Or is it that nobody is suspicious?
Eh, don't mind me, I'm dead. Of course, since I'm dead, but I'm still talking, I suspect that something funny in the rules is afoot. I'd be interested to know who mith is, in any case...

[shelper]

You're right, this IS hitchhiker mafia.
I wouldn't be surprised if halfway in the game the mafia will try to invade the whole planet, only to get eaten by a huge hungry dog...

[mathcam]

Suspicious is meant in a relatively way in this occasion, Orbiting. Everyone starts out with equal suspicion, and when you say someone is susipcious, you mean moreso than the rest of the players.

I agree with mith and PB about Foolster, and it certailny looks like he was called on the lurking front and decided to remedy the situation.

Unvote: Leonidas

Vote: Foolster41

Cam

[Dourgrim]

I'm back.

vote: Foolster41

for voting for me when I was away (even though he claims it was random), being deliberately obtuse with regard to mith's (admittedly long but reasonable) posts, and because I'm bandwagonning.

[Foolster41]

Rule number 1: Do not vote for people that you do not think are suspicious.

I could go into a long tirade about why fishing for role claims is silly, if you like. It's been done in numerous games. But strike one is not just suggesting it. It's suggesting it *after* it's already been mentioned in this game's debate that it's a stupid idea.

Strike 2 is for the second part. After claiming it's "not because I want to kill him" (read: I don't *really* think he's scum), he then says I'm scummy for a long conversation. Look guys, I'm sorry I talk a lot, but there is nothing at all confusing about any of my posts. And it's certainly not a reason to vote for me or think I'm scummy, I do it every single game I'm in. Plus, he FOSes mathcam in the same breath. I could understand if he thought one of us was being deliberately misleading to try to get a quick lynch or to try to sow discord or whatever, but you can't really have it both ways (and no, I'm not saying that two Mafia *couldn't* argue like mad, but I've sure never seen it done successfully).[/quote]

I'm wondering if Mith could misinteript my words any more than he did?
I voted for him because he was supiscous!

I'm a bit confused about your term "Fishing for role claims". do you mean we shouldn't be trying to get role claims at all? That seems pretty darn stupid to me since the only alternitives is randomly lynching or listening to just people talk (Which could take forever)
And as for the second strike, I'm actually noting on the people who say. "Gee he made vote 4/6 he's trying to quikcly kill him! SCUM! SCUM!" and pointing out that I'm not band wagoning for death, but to get information for the town.

As for Dourgrum. NO I didn't know you were away. I'm sorry if you think that 1 vote on you is unfair or some sign of scumminess. YES it was random. As I have said before (in another game) it is just STUPID to have to defend your random votes. It ruins the whole purpose of random votes.

[bane221]

Unvote: Kerplunk

I had no real evidence or arguments to sustain that. Started random, had no support, and now taking it out (no joke intended).

[PolarBoy]

Something I was thinking about Orbiting. Do we have a confirmed innocent? I mean, we know that she's Hotblack Desiato now. Do we think that a dead rock star is potential scum? Maybe it's a bad idea to try guessing at the scum in this. After all, the mice were the mafia in Hitchhiker 1. I'm not sure who would be the mafia in restaurant. Zaphod's conspirators perhaps? Frogstar fighters? Maybe I shouldn't be posting this late at night...