|
Day One
May 23, 2007 12:06:43 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 23, 2007 12:06:43 GMT -5
[Game off] I'd actually been having some health problems starting yesterday afternoon, so sorry for dropping off the radar. I've been debating subbing out, since I was unsure if I'd be able to keep up with two games while this is going on, but I think I've got it under control for now. If it gets any worse before the end of this Day, I'll be ducking out to try to save everyone from the drama and trouble of a late substitution. Assuming I'm still alive by then, of course. ;D[Game on] [game off]Sorry about that, I hope it isn't anything serious and that you feel better. [/game off] ok CaerieD has posted. Vote DiggitCamera You haven't really posted anything of any weight in this game yet. 'Sup with that?
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 13:06:23 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 13:06:23 GMT -5
Along the same lines, where's that scurvy Autolycus been?
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 13:07:06 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on May 23, 2007 13:07:06 GMT -5
I spent some of last night and this morning reviewing the thread, trying to find some patterns. I think today might be a good time to start voting in earnest.
What I looked for were those who might be hiding just enough, and riding on other's ideas without advancing much of their own. And the one who pinged me most was ...DiggitCamara.
But then I notice NAF has gone and thought exactly like me again, it appears, and it's kind of freaky at this point. I'm almost inclined to trust him a little less, or at least be a little wary lest my positive assessment of his strategy makes me miss something else. But if he is scum, he's at least (IMO) playing well for the crew right now. But as storyteller pointed out, you can't necessarily trust anyone, even if they start out with good play.
I won't vote then, just a FOS on DiggitCam.
I've got my eye on a few others - Lakai but nothing jumps out, CaerieD (though her recent post sort of explains that).
I don't get why ArizonaTeach is suspicious of early votes - I'm taking my time myself but I don't see early votes as particularly piratish or crewish. His suspicion makes me wonder a bit - FOS on ArizonaTeach.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 13:16:16 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 13:16:16 GMT -5
Ah, actually I see form the absences thread that Autolycus is getting some lurve. Exonerated by wenching.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 13:30:51 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on May 23, 2007 13:30:51 GMT -5
Along the same lines, where's that scurvy Autolycus been? I just hope he ain't the cook on this ship...if he is, I am ordering out.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 13:50:01 GMT -5
Post by fluiddruid on May 23, 2007 13:50:01 GMT -5
Its true, I haven't played in any of the earlier SDMB games, but I have played in other Mafia games in other venues (MafiaScum.net, mostly), and my observation has been that the more aggresive players earlier in the game turn often out to be scum. Not always of course, but as an initial observation to start my thinking, I think it remains valid. In my opinion, it's aggressive early scum that we needn't worry about. Scum can't stay aggressive indefinitely if non-scum is any good, because, to be aggressive you have to post. A lot. Eventually, you're likely to start giving tells, or your voting record will tend to nab you. It all comes down to the tells, and the votes. While I tend to view with suspicion, those who post little and vote little as it gives them little accountability, ultimately you can't say "scum is aggressive/passive/defensive/analytical/emotional/prolific/unprolific because the scum can, in turn, change their strategies. Frankly I don't want to list a group of what I think are scum tells until I see 'em, but, so far I would say piling on tends to be a scum tell (but two ain't a pileon, Idle Thoughts) and so does discouraging analysis or shortening debate.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 13:59:12 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 23, 2007 13:59:12 GMT -5
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Please remember this and think of me.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 14:01:37 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 23, 2007 14:01:37 GMT -5
(snip) Vote DiggitCamera You haven't really posted anything of any weight in this game yet. 'Sup with that? Well, I take it you refer to my first day on Mafia3, where I posted heavily and often on the first day. A couple of reasons why that has changed (thus far) in this game: 1. I got the feeling in that game there were a lot of newbies around (including me). So I tried to use the game as a kind of sounding board that could both orient other newbies and test my ideas (to see if they resonated with anyone). You actually pointed that out early in the game. In this game there are few newbies and most of the points I made in that other game have already been made here. 2. To get the ball moving early in Mafia3 I voted very early (to head off any "no-vote" movements). I actually think that went pretty well in that game. In this game the no-vote movement has been largely absent and thus far I can't say I have really seen anyone whose votes have prompted me to vote for (or against) them. 3. The other game has me a bit preoccupied
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 14:12:42 GMT -5
Post by Lakai on May 23, 2007 14:12:42 GMT -5
Speaking of odd behavior - BlasterMaster only has one post?
He had the third most amount of posts in M2 and he did not even get to the end of the game.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 14:13:16 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 23, 2007 14:13:16 GMT -5
3. The other game has me a bit preoccupied AH HA! So now the truth comes out! Your priorities are out of order sir! Honestly I am a bit stuck at the moment, thanks for responding though. Unvote DiggitNo one seems any scummier than anyone else to me. The lurkers all seem to have decent reasons for lurking (except zuma). And the only other conversation we have had was the Idle Thoughts, cowgirl, Kyrie three way that happened a little bit ago. Frankly that feels a bit too much like Day 2 of M2 for my taste.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 14:25:06 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on May 23, 2007 14:25:06 GMT -5
Speaking of odd behavior - BlasterMaster only has one post? He had the third most amount of posts in M2 and he did not even get to the end of the game. Now that is an intriguing point. BlasterMaster was extremely active in M2 and he's also the fifth most active poster in the current Mafia game. That sets a pretty firm pattern of high activity there, so why the sudden change? As for Autolycus, I believe he already stated that he has his girlfriend in town and so isn't very likely to be active right now.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 14:47:30 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 14:47:30 GMT -5
Now, Noob question. If we get the the end of the Day and can't seem to identify anyone in particular as particularly scummy, is not lynching anyone an option (is that the "no vote" movement referred to?)? That way we only lose one more crew member in that Day-Night period rather than, statistically speaking, a probable two members from stepping on the collective dick, so to speak.
Now, Blaster Master, you will note, did have a goodly number of early posts on the SS Google. Remember that interesting discussion? He expressed a wish to look for less contrived ways of eliciting information than random voting, which he had defended then argued against. 6:35-- "The obvious suggestion on how to begin is with random voting, or nearly random voting. " 8:31--"Thus, as I said before, I intend to pick people at random and make them defend themselves. I'm not going to let another person whom I don't trust select my targets for me because, for all I know, he could be scum deliberately leaning my targets toward pro-crew players. " 11:48--"The point of a random vote is that, as crew without additional information, our votes ARE random, and they will show up as such. If the pirates pretend to vote random, but in fact don't, then patterns may arise which we can use to our advantage." 15:31-- "You're probably right; I guess it doesn't really help at all if I don't get much of a reaction out of you, as one vote doesn't create enough threat for a non-novice player to screw up. Now it's getting to the point where votes won't do that, so we're going to have to find a less contrived way of making people feel threatened so they'll cough up the goodies." 15:39--"Yes, it does allow them to blend more easily... at first, because we are unable to discern random votes from informed votes. However, the idea was two fold, that it will force players to feel threatened and potentiall screw up if they're scum (where it seems to be failing); the second part was that later when we DO have information, the random votes won't look so random, and we may be able to discern some patterns by going "hey look, this pirate voted here on day one when he was claiming random; maybe it wasn't random... hmm..." Regardless, the idea is to get information, whether it's usable now or later, though preferably now. Still, we don't get any hard evidence until after someone is dead, and we can see who they accused and who accused them." I see some waffling here. Finger of scurviness points at Master Blaster
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 14:52:59 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 23, 2007 14:52:59 GMT -5
Nice post capybara!
I guess you are up next BM
Vote Blaster Master
Come on in and defend your suddenly lurksome ways.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 14:53:59 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 14:53:59 GMT -5
Or, I should clarify-- a pirate could very well vote completely randomly today and not affect any outcome at all. Roll dice, or run a randomizer, vote for someone, no biggie, since statistics are on his side and any vote for a pirate will likely wash out by the end of the day. I don't think any pirates will vote with any meaningful intention until very late in the day, and then only if a pirate is in trouble, and the suggestion that they would is a bit dodgy and just sets up signal noise. Do we hope that with 35 really random votes over the course of the day that the 3 not-random ones show up as something meaningful eventually? Is this like the crewmember SETI project?
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 15:17:34 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on May 23, 2007 15:17:34 GMT -5
Hmm. Interesting points, capybara. I'd really been hoping to avoid random votes, as I've mentioned before, but you make a good argument about the thinking behind it not being particularly solid. The pirates could make random votes and it wouldn't do them any harm at all. That doesn't mean that we should all use random.org to pick who to make walk the plank, but we shouldn't assume looking at votes will help us out that much.
I'm very interested in hearing what Blaster has to say now.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 15:18:23 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 15:18:23 GMT -5
And. . . in fact, one might choose to make the argument, in bad faith, that such later data analysis of the first couple of days will be useful, in the knowledge that it is such weak and malleable information that it would serve whatever purposes you might want it to days down the line. WHICH first day votes will look suspicious? Whichever ones a person wants to deem so. Do random votes/ apparent random votes help or not? To get people talking, perhaps. Does study of random/apparent random voting help, as an indicator of anything meaningful about the players now or later? Perhaps not so much, and I find the suggestion that it does/will fishy. I find the discussion of strategies more informative than any votes right now. In this case actions are empty, and words are the only actual material we have to work with.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 15:44:11 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 23, 2007 15:44:11 GMT -5
Here is another post that says you think something, but at the end you say you don't think it. Either you are very confused or you are trying to set yourself up to be able to say "See I brought that up, I thought that!" whichever way the chips fall. I don't see how. How is "it wouldn't surprise me that one or more people with pirate avatars turn out to really be pirates" going either way? That seems to be a pretty steadfast, solid deduction/thought/opinion/estimate/guess/whathaveyou. I don't care if people use avatars. You seem to be not admitting that it's certainly possible or plausible for a real pirate to throw people off by actually using an avatar of an actual pirate. I say, that actually might be something to look at or take into consideration. Touche! ;D
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 15:44:28 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 23, 2007 15:44:28 GMT -5
Idle. Please, now. You're reading hints from avatars? I'm also suspicious of invisible users. . . How's that different from reading hints from being invisible/visible? Why are you twisting what I meant? I said I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them were one just to play with other's minds. Note the parts in bold. Those parts make: "One of them is a pirate" very different from "I wouldn't be surprised that this MIGHT be the case" Again, you must have missed the part where I explained a couple other reasons for voting for him in the same post. You're really seeming like you're trying to push hard.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 16:05:43 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on May 23, 2007 16:05:43 GMT -5
Its true, I haven't played in any of the earlier SDMB games, but I have played in other Mafia games in other venues (MafiaScum.net, mostly), and my observation has been that the more aggresive players earlier in the game turn often out to be scum. Not always of course, but as an initial observation to start my thinking, I think it remains valid. Fair enough. At this point, all suspicions are valid, and a vote for me is a good way to start - or expand - your assessments of all of the players. Time will tell. I still disagree with your assessment of aggressiveness, but it's something reasonable players could disagree on. Of course, no one's really playing aggressive here yet, at least compared to M2 where we had factions of players (almost entirely Townies) going for each other's blood. --Unvote KatiRoo--Hmm, I had zuma's back in the last game, but he's nowhere to be seen. So a provisional: ++Vote zuma++until he shows up.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 16:36:56 GMT -5
Post by KatiRoo on May 23, 2007 16:36:56 GMT -5
Of course, no one's really playing aggressive here yet, at least compared to M2 where we had factions of players (almost entirely Townies) going for each other's blood. Just wait until tomorrow evening. All of the long knives will be out and dripping.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 16:50:25 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 16:50:25 GMT -5
Ok, another conversational/ strategic point, moving off the "what would you do Day One if you were scum", a follow up question. On Night One, who do pirates have killed? Are there any trends there? Do they kill the crewmember that's most onto one of them, or purposefully NOT do so, or pick a random member, or try to pick a particular special role? Who do we see getting killed in the night?
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 16:57:21 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 23, 2007 16:57:21 GMT -5
I keep thinking of comments and then not having the particular energy to post them. Blame my melancholy off-board mood, I guess. Still following the discussion, though.
I'm also bothered by the fact that, while I'm pretty sure a couple different people are town from the tone of their posts, nobody's really jumped out at me as particularly scummy. It's one thing to know, intellectually, that we're far more likely to hang a townie on Day One than we are to snag a pirate, given the numbers and the general lack of information, but it's a whole 'nother thing to get committed to actually vote for someone anyway, if that makes sense.
Don't get me wrong; I'm going to vote. At worst I'll make like the LSATs and eliminate from my mental consideration all the people I think are town, then choose the shadiest from among the rest. But I won't be particularly happy about casting an essentially blind vote.
(And if anyone quibbles with the "essentially blind" phrase, lemme ask you: on what basis are you going to vote today, when push comes to shove? As someone---I can't remember who, maybe Kyrie---said, it's emphatically not in our interests to end up with a surge of "oh, damn, I haven't voted yet...better do it now" votes with two or three hours left in the day, because that severely limits discussion and the opportunity to glean reactions. But if we want to avoid that kind of tardy surge, we need to start voting in earnest much sooner...and while I appreciate the kind of poke-'em-with-a-stick votes that NAF and Pleonast are currently engaged in, I don't think they're gonna get us much of anywhere. So I think we need a gameplan, and I think we need it pretty quickly. Any ideas?)
Damn, that was a long parenthetical. Apparently I can best my melancholy mood by framing things as quick asides.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:15:06 GMT -5
Post by fluiddruid on May 23, 2007 17:15:06 GMT -5
Ok, another conversational/ strategic point, moving off the "what would you do Day One if you were scum", a follow up question. On Night One, who do pirates have killed? Are there any trends there? Do they kill the crewmember that's most onto one of them, or purposefully NOT do so, or pick a random member, or try to pick a particular special role? Who do we see getting killed in the night? It depends. In the end, the scum want to kill people who: - Ideally, are power roles; - Are beneficial to the "townies; - Won't get them killed by killing them Early in the game, it will depend on the main targets. A small group of targets will inevitably emerge (as it has already started to). If the Usual Suspect are scum, then, it's more difficult, but far more likely it's vanillas. In which case, you kill trying to keep the bandwagon going and to rob the town of people who are strong contributors, smart, but ideally who haven't IDed all of the scum, but will tend to incriminate others. However, you can't always say that's true because, as always, scum adapts. Still, the ones I expect to be killed fast are vanilla types that were strong performers in previous games more than anything.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:19:37 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 23, 2007 17:19:37 GMT -5
(And if anyone quibbles with the "essentially blind" phrase, lemme ask you: on what basis are you going to vote today, when push comes to shove? As someone---I can't remember who, maybe Kyrie---said, it's emphatically not in our interests to end up with a surge of "oh, damn, I haven't voted yet...better do it now" votes with two or three hours left in the day, because that severely limits discussion and the opportunity to glean reactions. But if we want to avoid that kind of tardy surge, we need to start voting in earnest much sooner...and while I appreciate the kind of poke-'em-with-a-stick votes that NAF and Pleonast are currently engaged in, I don't think they're gonna get us much of anywhere. So I think we need a gameplan, and I think we need it pretty quickly. Any ideas?) If I had any better ideas I wouldn't be using the "poke em with a stick" plan. It isn't my favorite course of action, but honestly hardly anyone is really talking at this point. There are 9 people who have posted fewer than 6 times in the last 3 days. And many of those posts are quite fluffy. At a certain point it starts to feel like you are having a conversation with yourself.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:49:52 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 17:49:52 GMT -5
CaerieD. If you WERE a pirate, not that you are, but if you were, who (individual) would you argue to shiv in his/her sleep tonight and why? Same question to FluidDruid and Pleonast.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:50:16 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on May 23, 2007 17:50:16 GMT -5
Ok, another conversational/ strategic point, moving off the "what would you do Day One if you were scum", a follow up question. On Night One, who do pirates have killed? Are there any trends there? Do they kill the crewmember that's most onto one of them, or purposefully NOT do so, or pick a random member, or try to pick a particular special role? Who do we see getting killed in the night? Based off of what I've seen in previous games, it seems like the most experienced get offed first. I'd assume the scum are concerned about getting rid of people who'll recognize their strategies easily. Later on, they might go for power roles and if somebody makes a really big "x marks the spot where you can stab me in the back" type of blunder they might get offed on the first night, but in the last two games it was the most experienced players who went on the first night.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:51:12 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 23, 2007 17:51:12 GMT -5
There are 9 people who have posted fewer than 6 times in the last 3 days. And many of those posts are quite fluffy. At a certain point it starts to feel like you are having a conversation with yourself. Some of us are in fact listening though. I tend not to talk much unless inspired. So far my senses have detected nothing of real interest, primarily because everyone who has said something that caught my attention has only done so once. Most of those are in the "random votes get people talking" camp, which I disagree with. My approach currently is to ask why I'm being accused. I'll be reading the thread (from about page 4) again before voting. Who knows, if I can get rid of this cold, I might actually be able to think. (It's in the 80s today, and I have a summer cold. I am not a happy bunny.) Given that Day ends at (iirc) midday BST on Friday, or just over 36 hors from now, I'll probably be voting late Thursday night with a review Friday morning. Don't hold your breath though... *Retires to his hammock with as cold a drink as he can scrounge up and a pack of cough sweets.*
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:51:13 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 17:51:13 GMT -5
And the reason I pull ya'll out is because a) you've posted fewer than 10 times and I don't feel like I know you at all and b) you're online right now.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:53:25 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 17:53:25 GMT -5
That (post #207) was a late followup to post #204, and I acknowledge that CaerieD's already started to share her thoughts.
|
|
|
Day One
May 23, 2007 17:57:44 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 23, 2007 17:57:44 GMT -5
If the most experienced townies get disembowelled first, doesn't it make sense that pro-town townies would spend as much time as possible early on sharing strategy with the Noobs, who are on the same team and may be the ones to survive to make use of that wisdom? Is there any good pro-town reason for experienced players to hold their theoretical/ methodological cards to their chests, at least in abstract terms?
|
|