Mafiascum.net

Draft order is can be very relevant with PYP, and number theory really helps identify the best scum candidates.

Hoopla almost broke this game for scum in Day 1. I was scum that game, I'm going to read over it again and remind myself exactly why I was sweating it out so much.

sorry about the late random vote guys; for some reason i didn't notice pages two and three. in fact, the last post i saw when making that post was the post above stryker's podrik post. not sure why the other pages did not display, but oh well. i am now caught up.

In post 38, Your Troubles Will Cease wrote:I'd argue that it's riskier for scum to pick #1. It draws attention to them, and if they get a double then that's more of a loss because of the smaller team size.

i fail to see how this draws attention to the scum except in the context of this game, where someone posted a theory pretty quickly about scum choosing early numbers.

from reading those posts, their logic is similar to mine; i thought 4 was a low but safe number but of course i was wrong. i think if you gave two neighbors a quicktopic before the game, their discussion would be similar as well. i actually think this is more likely to be a manufactured ploy by scum Siveure DtTrikyp (he had those quicktopics on hand pretty fast) than town seeing scum voting 1 (although a bus with one of the two who voted 1 could be in the works), seeing as he voted a ridiculously low number to make sure he would not be implicated in his theory while being protected by the idea that that strategy guarantees you a unique vote, albeit the last one. i agree with the lottery fallacy by Xdaamno. btw, did i IC one of you newbie games? your name is very familiar to me.



not sure if there is enough for me to place a vote yet; i don't like Siveure's vote on stryker but i'm not sure if i want to vote him just yet. i'd rather be more sure of myself and it is fairly early. i have to say i like the way the game progressed right from the start, so regardless of your alignment, kudos to Siveure to getting the discussion rolling in an interesting and refreshing way i don't see often here in RVS stages (although i've never played with a lottery before)

In post 51, pieceofpecanpie wrote:Draft order is can be very relevant with PYP, and number theory really helps identify the best scum candidates.

Hoopla almost broke this game for scum in Day 1. I was scum that game, I'm going to read over it again and remind myself exactly why I was sweating it out so much.

you know, sorry for the double post, but that is interesting. scum would likely vote separately to give themselves the best chances at roles, but they might try and double up to confuse town. it would be an interesting statistical analysis project to see which would be the better idea (there is enough WIFOM here that i would just not double up and go for the power roles if i were scum) and what would be considered an outlier for the size of the group of the number chosen the most often.

Doubling up probably isn't going to happen because most people won't realize the potential gain.

And I don't think I've ever played with you.

And I think what happened was nothing to do with number theory beyond further narrowing down the scum of a pool of 6.

And how the hell is my pick of over 9000 relevant? I could have picked TWO and I wouldn't be implicating myself.

In post 54, Siveure DtTrikyp wrote:Doubling up probably isn't going to happen because most people won't realize the potential gain.

this is not a good reason to disregard the possibility. how do we know they won't realize the potential gain?

sorry accidentally hit submit early

In post 54, Siveure DtTrikyp wrote:And I don't think I've ever played with you.

i was talking about Xdaamno, not you. sorry for any confusion.

In [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5055250#p5055250]post 54[/url], [quote=Siveure DtTrikyp post_id=5055250 time=1372129906 user_id=19215] wrote:And I think what happened was nothing to do with number theory beyond further narrowing down the scum of a pool of 6.

i don't understand the point you are making. can you please clarify this?

In post 54, Siveure DtTrikyp wrote:And how the hell is my pick of over 9000 relevant? I could have picked TWO and I wouldn't be implicating myself.

it is relevant because you are accusing scum of choosing lower numbers since you think they can afford to take the risk while you yourself don't choose a lower number - in fact you choose the highest number. i'm not saying it is a smoking gun by ANY means, but it is certainly relevant because you are conveniently not in a position to be suspected by your own theory.

you seem pretty defensive here, so i'm gonna go with my gut and
VOTE: Siveure DtTrikyp

In post 51, pieceofpecanpie wrote:Hoopla almost broke this game for scum in Day 1

I didn't realise how ambiguous that read.

What I meant was: Hoopla was town and used draft order theory to set up sensible lynches and/or nail most of scum Day 1.

Posts like this one from that game are very useful. I want to bring some of that into the discussion soon. Pretty much when most folks have dropped in/moved beyond RVS.

Alabaska actually raises a decent point. Choosing a number over 9000 doesn't clear you. Yeah, it doesn't implicate you either, like Siv pointed out in #54, but the defensiveness is interesting.

This is your first PYP game yes? Were you hoping to get a free town ticket with your draft number?

In post 57, pieceofpecanpie wrote:Posts like this one from that game are very useful. I want to bring some of that into the discussion soon. Pretty much when most folks have dropped in/moved beyond RVS.

seconding this. click that link people. interestingly enough, scum double up in one of the cited games. i'm not sure how well this info could direct us d1, but at some point later on i think the numbers will provide some very interesting circumstantial evidence.

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Stryker

Well that's me out of RVS.

Why not me or Smudger, if you're going by Hoopla's hypothesis?

You'd prefer it if I started pushing for your lynch?

Sure, if there's a reason for it besides "picking at random from amongst the top five"

If there's no actual reason, it's still RVS.

VOTE: Stryker

I don't like the fence sitting. Appears to like the RVS than relevant discussions but doesn't want to get too involved in it either.

In post 63, Belisarius wrote:Sure, if there's a reason for it besides "picking at random from amongst the top five"

If there's no actual reason, it's still RVS.

I have an actual reason for voting Stryker.

Some rudimentary PoE is only part of that.

VOTE: sakura

Scum last time I played.

In post 64, Cade wrote:Appears to like the RVS than relevant discussions but doesn't want to get too involved in it either.

What about you getting involved too and give your opinion on what has been said so far instead of just jumping on a wagon?

In post 65, pieceofpecanpie wrote: I have an actual reason for voting Stryker.

Some rudimentary PoE is only part of that.

What is your PoE based on exactly? Game mechanics or content?

In post 64, Cade wrote:VOTE: Stryker

I don't like the fence sitting. Appears to like the RVS than relevant discussions but doesn't want to get too involved in it either.

this looks REALLY opportunistic.

In post 66, Mutleyddmc wrote:VOTE: sakura

Scum last time I played.

we aren't in random voting anymore (says the pot to the kettle)

In post 65, pieceofpecanpie wrote:

In post 63, Belisarius wrote:Sure, if there's a reason for it besides "picking at random from amongst the top five"

If there's no actual reason, it's still RVS.

I have an actual reason for voting Stryker.

Some rudimentary PoE is only part of that.

why not tell us more about this actual reason instead of alluding to it?

In post 68, Alabaska J wrote:

In post 64, Cade wrote:VOTE: Stryker

I don't like the fence sitting. Appears to like the RVS than relevant discussions but doesn't want to get too involved in it either.

this looks REALLY opportunistic.

fos: cade

In post 66, Mutleyddmc wrote:VOTE: sakura

Scum last time I played.

we aren't in random voting anymore (says the pot to the kettle)

You might not be, but I sure am

In post 69, Alabaska J wrote:why not tell us more about this actual reason instead of alluding to it?

Mmmm, I will very shortly.

Beli's #61 and #63 put me off.

Well yes, I guess Alabaska's powers of observation are mighty and he's managed to point out you're still RVS. But why are you? 3 pages in still no scum reads or anything catch your eye?

Am I not allowed to be?

In post 73, Mutleyddmc wrote:Am I not allowed to be?

What is the point of RVS?