|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 25, 2012 17:26:05 GMT -5
Pleo, your results will be considered provisional regardless. You aren't Town and can't be trusted to have the same motivations as Town. Even if we're able to confirm that you are non-hostile, we can't ever know your real wincon and will never know if you've achieved it or have work left to do that might be at crosspurposes to what Town is doing.
True or fake, claiming this role was a dumb idea. Even assuming that you're 100% truthful, you've still put Town in a position where we have to deal with you.
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Sept 25, 2012 20:00:03 GMT -5
How did you get a copy of all the powers in the game and what can I do to get a peek at it?
|
|
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:
|
Post by Parzival on Sept 25, 2012 20:18:48 GMT -5
<snipped> As for my vote: I normally am going to vote for someone I think is scum, regardless of what else is going on. <snipped> There just wasn't enough of a record generated by that to really be meaningful if KidV turned town. Even if he showed scum, it would be great but of little information otherwise. <snipped> But at the time, it seemed to me a better chance of him being scum than anyone else in the game. I'm still leaning that way. I admit one thing I didn't think about was why KidV wanted to survive as town, aside from wanting to prevent a mislynch — he surely wanted to use the merc Tonight, which was probably more motivation than I was thinking he would have. 1 and 2 seem discongruent to me. and i assume 3 is the reasing for voting for stickler? right? Well, #1 is reason I voted KidV (and basically, for IS as well). #2 is why I unvoted him. So they are discongruent. My explanation of the process was lacking. And #3 is my current thinking on KidV.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 25, 2012 21:24:52 GMT -5
OOG
My name is Meeko and I have a problem with Super Hexagon.
I can't be the only one, right?
/OOG
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 25, 2012 22:52:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Sept 25, 2012 23:07:33 GMT -5
I'm inclined to think it's a null tell. If he is scum, he might suspect that his winning bid would become public somehow, and feel inclined to share so he wouldn't have to explain why he didn't share later on. I'm not parsing this, sorry. Crys is referring to my sharing the Merc powers PM, which I gave up freely, and well after I'd already shared that I'd won the mercenary auction, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? The point is that while revealing the information is pro-town, a non town player would be forced to also reveal the information since not revealing the information if it was found at a later time that you had the information paint you/your actions as being anti-town. So since town players, scum players, and third party players all have significant motivation to reveal the information - it's a null tell. The act of revealing the information says nothing about your alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Sept 25, 2012 23:09:21 GMT -5
Also, I didn't recall that you had claimed the winning bid then later posted the powers. Notwithstanding still a null tell.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Sept 25, 2012 23:11:49 GMT -5
I spent some time over lunchbreak doodling on the back of a sheet of scrap paper. This was the result. The table shows the expected designation result for an investigator of the alignment and designator shown in the left hand column checking on a subject with the alignment and designator shown in the top row. | Town | Mafia | 3P NH | 3P Hos | Town | Non-Hostile | Hostile | Non-Hostile | Hostile | Mafia | Hostile | Hostile or Non-Hostile1 | Non-Hostile | Hostile | 3P NH | Hostile | Hostile | Non-Hostile | Hostile | 3P Hos | Hostile | Hostile | Non-Hostile | Hostile2 |
1A Mafia investigator checking on another Mafiate will get a non-hostile designation if the two are on the same Mafia team and share the same wincon. If there are multiple mafia teams, I assume each such team will be hostile to the other teams. Similarly, if there is a Mafia traitor (with a different wincon to the rest of the team) 3 they'd show hostile to another Mafiate's investigation. 2This assumes there are two or more Third Party Hostile players, and one of them is investigating another. 3This was billed as a Gastard game, so I decline to rule it out. Any Mafiate who wants to claim and reassure us Pollux told them there would be no traitors will enable me to remove that note. A slight nitpick, if two hostile third parties have the same wincondition, they could appear to be non-hostile to each other, depending on the nature of that win condition. But I think that's a real edge case.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Sept 25, 2012 23:17:50 GMT -5
I don't expect the game to end if you achieve your claimed wincon. What I expect is that, as a result, you will leave the game in the Dusk of Night 3 post. You will never carry out your promised investigations because you have won. My working theory is that I will not leave the game even after I've won it. There's no evidence in either my role PM or the game's rules that winning third parties exit the game. Why have you chose this side of the coin to be the correct one? Have you already asked the mod if you leave the game upon meeting your win condition? What motivation would you have to play once you've already won?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Sept 25, 2012 23:33:31 GMT -5
What motivation would you have to play once you've already won? Ask BillMc who had a third-party role, won the game, and continued playing (For Town, as it happened). Not remotely defending Pleo, just observing there is precedent.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Sept 25, 2012 23:39:20 GMT -5
I was unaware of that precedent.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Sept 26, 2012 2:05:41 GMT -5
Three kingdoms was multifaction with three groups. Each group was strong against one clan and weak against the other. Talking about your powers was verboten. One of the players, roosh, maybe started talking about how he hated shoes which was code that as healer(?maybe?) he was ineffective against members of the Shu clan. It didn't work and he lost his power. Do you hate shoes is a common question to ask when you think someone may be breadcrumbing. I did breadcrumb of course. But I also made it pretty much one of those I'll explain it to you after the game kind of deciphers. What's the point of breadcrumbing if someone besides myself can figure out what it means? You'll need me here to explain it. And if I die, well, you'll know what I was anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Sept 26, 2012 2:09:35 GMT -5
Pleo, your results will be considered provisional regardless. You aren't Town and can't be trusted to have the same motivations as Town. Even if we're able to confirm that you are non-hostile, we can't ever know your real wincon and will never know if you've achieved it or have work left to do that might be at crosspurposes to what Town is doing. True or fake, claiming this role was a dumb idea. Even assuming that you're 100% truthful, you've still put Town in a position where we have to deal with you. I appreciate the claim and I also appreciate the risk he took claiming it. I know what it is like to have a third party role (Not in this game) and one of the best ways to tell town you're not hostile is to come forward and claim while not under pressure, and early. That said, the claim needs to pass the sniff test. So far, I'm fine with Pleo's claim.
|
|
|
Post by Askthepizzaguy on Sept 26, 2012 2:12:07 GMT -5
Also, I'm not comfortable being as verbose as I usually am, in a game with so many other talkative people.
You want me to talk more just say so but I'm having trouble keeping up as it is. And I read and re-read mafia games with 4000 posts before. There are just so many long, quote-y, blah blah posts that more from me would be counterproductive.
But hey! If nights are less talkative i'll be blabby then. Howzat.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Sept 26, 2012 3:48:57 GMT -5
Three kingdoms was multifaction with three groups. Each group was strong against one clan and weak against the other. Talking about your powers was verboten. One of the players, roosh, maybe started talking about how he hated shoes which was code that as healer(?maybe?) he was ineffective against members of the Shu clan. It didn't work and he lost his power. Do you hate shoes is a common question to ask when you think someone may be breadcrumbing. I did breadcrumb of course. But I also made it pretty much one of those I'll explain it to you after the game kind of deciphers. What's the point of breadcrumbing if someone besides myself can figure out what it means? You'll need me here to explain it. And if I die, well, you'll know what I was anyway. Are you saying you breadcrumbed in Three Kingdoms? Or This game. Cause........ How on earth are you going to breadcrumb on N1 ?
|
|
|
Post by wombat99 on Sept 26, 2012 7:12:22 GMT -5
I did breadcrumb of course. But I also made it pretty much one of those I'll explain it to you after the game kind of deciphers. What's the point of breadcrumbing if someone besides myself can figure out what it means? You'll need me here to explain it. And if I die, well, you'll know what I was anyway. Are you saying you breadcrumbed in Three Kingdoms? Or This game. Cause........ How on earth are you going to breadcrumb on N1 ? I don't see why you can't breadcrumb on N1, or any night for that matter. Unless I don't understand how breadcrumbing works. ATPG's posts, in particular, appear to contain hidden information worthy of a closer look (or is that just his play style?)
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Sept 26, 2012 7:54:28 GMT -5
I'm also curious if Pizza was breadcrumbing in his Prose type speak earlier? It was very bizarre to say the least, and I'm wondering if it's role related.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 8:31:05 GMT -5
Also, I'm not comfortable being as verbose as I usually am, in a game with so many other talkative people. You want me to talk more just say so but I'm having trouble keeping up as it is. And I read and re-read mafia games with 4000 posts before. There are just so many long, quote-y, blah blah posts that more from me would be counterproductive. But hey! If nights are less talkative i'll be blabby then. Howzat. I was wondering about that. You are the top poster this Night (so far) with 14% of the posts. Day One you ranked 18th (4 way tie) with 2% of the posts.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 26, 2012 8:40:28 GMT -5
My working theory is that I will not leave the game even after I've won it. There's no evidence in either my role PM or the game's rules that winning third parties exit the game. Your "working theory" is all well and good, but it's not my working theory and I think it runs counter to good game design. If you remain in the game having won, even if you decide to continue playing - and assuming random distribution of roles the game creator could't have known when designing the role whether it would go to the sort of player who would keep going with nothing to play for - you have no motivation to support Town. You could decide it would be more interesting to help the Scum. You could decide to try to help out a hostile third party. You could decide to just play randomly, and introduce anarchy. The point is, you would no longer be a part of the game in a meaningful way, and thus no one could predict, influence, or depend upon anything you do. So. Pollux's games have always been well-designed. You are asking us, collectively, to: 1. Accept that he has included this poor design element here - not just consider it as possible, but affirmatively accept your self-serving "working theory" as true and guide our actions based on it; AND 2. Assume that, having already won the game, you will continue to act in our collective interest despite having no particular reason to do so. Assuming you are telling the truth, we will never get confirmation of anything you say. Your death will reveal that you were not Town. This confirms nothing. Nonhostile third parties are not just de facto Town. I've always been interested in this - and Roosh figured it out in the last Arkham game, played definitively to help the Scum win, and swung the endgame that way. Even if you're telling the truth about your alignment, your intentions will remain uncertain until the game is completely over.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 26, 2012 9:56:21 GMT -5
Given that I'm third party and don't care who wins, lying about my investigations has no possible benefit. <bolding mine>And this is why I voted for you on Day 1. I do care who wins. It may not make a big difference on Day 1, but once the game gets down to a handful of players, one person who 'doesn't care' becomes a huge liability for Town. I'd simply rather take care of that liability early on, when we don't really have a 'better target'.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 10:00:19 GMT -5
How did you get a copy of all the powers in the game and what can I do to get a peek at it? Are you asking me? That's not a list of the powers in the game, that's a menu of what I could have the Merc do.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 10:07:29 GMT -5
I'm not parsing this, sorry. Crys is referring to my sharing the Merc powers PM, which I gave up freely, and well after I'd already shared that I'd won the mercenary auction, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? The point is that while revealing the information is pro-town, a non town player would be forced to also reveal the information since not revealing the information if it was found at a later time that you had the information paint you/your actions as being anti-town. So since town players, scum players, and third party players all have significant motivation to reveal the information - it's a null tell. The act of revealing the information says nothing about your alignment. Well, ok. Regardless of what you think of my motivation, I HAVE helped Town by revealing that info, yes? My point is, we can speculate about eachothers motivations until the cows come home, but for me, actions speak louder. I don't care if a person is scum or town, if they consistently act in a pro-Town manner then Town is going to win, and that's enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Sept 26, 2012 10:08:26 GMT -5
I spent some time over lunchbreak doodling on the back of a sheet of scrap paper. This was the result. The table shows the expected designation result for an investigator of the alignment and designator shown in the left hand column checking on a subject with the alignment and designator shown in the top row. | Town | Mafia | 3P NH | 3P Hos | Town | Non-Hostile | Hostile | Non-Hostile | Hostile | Mafia | Hostile | Hostile or Non-Hostile1 | Non-Hostile | Hostile | 3P NH | Hostile | Hostile | Non-Hostile | Hostile | 3P Hos | Hostile | Hostile | Non-Hostile | Hostile2 |
1A Mafia investigator checking on another Mafiate will get a non-hostile designation if the two are on the same Mafia team and share the same wincon. If there are multiple mafia teams, I assume each such team will be hostile to the other teams. Similarly, if there is a Mafia traitor (with a different wincon to the rest of the team) 3 they'd show hostile to another Mafiate's investigation. 2This assumes there are two or more Third Party Hostile players, and one of them is investigating another. 3This was billed as a Gastard game, so I decline to rule it out. Any Mafiate who wants to claim and reassure us Pollux told them there would be no traitors will enable me to remove that note. Nice work, but I think it's wrong. There are TWO Designations, Hostile or Non-Hostile. NO Independent. Hostile: Hostile win conditions are win conditions that, when met, end the game and exclude other parties from winning. If a hostile party/group meets their win condition then the game is over for everybody, and usually results in other hostile parties losing the game. Examples of hostile win conditions include typical town (even though they are the "right" side to be on, if town wins the game is over, thus hostile), scum, and serial killer win conditions. Sample Hostile Win Condition:You are town. You win when all hostile non-town players have been eliminated.Nonhostile: Nonhostile win conditions are win conditions that can be met without ending the game or can be won alongside other winners. These win conditions don't interfere with hostile parties and are usually regarded as a mislynch or a miskill if they become the target. Examples of nonhostile win conditions include the typical Survivor role (be alive at endgame, regardless of who else wins), a Jester role (if he's lynched Day One he wins, but the game continues for town/scum to see who wins), or more complicated roles like the Sidekick role from the first Super Smash Bros. game (the Sidekick had to boost four people, town had to end up at lynch or lose, and he had to be alive at the end of the game, but he could win with anybody). Sample Nonhostile Win Condition:You are third-party. You win, alive or dead, if you tagged at least five people, and at least two of them are alive when the game ends.I don't see anything in here that suggests that Designation is relative; that is, that a player's Designation depends on their relation to the player investigating them. It seems quite clear, for example, that a Town Player has Designation = Hostile. Period. Because their Win-Condition 'ends the game and exclude other Parties (i.e. Scum) from winning'. So an Investigation of a Town player will return a Designation of Hostile, regardless of who is doing the Investigation. In fact, it would appear that all players have a Hostile Designation unless they are Nonhostile Third Party...unless we have a 'Third Faction' with it's own Wincon that is independent of the rest.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 10:22:18 GMT -5
I don't pretend to understand exactly what's going on with the designations yet, Burbs, but Pollux has repeatedly said things like
which makes me think that some wincons are hostile to some alignments and not others.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Beckman on Sept 26, 2012 10:29:26 GMT -5
<snip> I don't see anything in here that suggests that Designation is relative; that is, that a player's Designation depends on their relation to the player investigating them. It seems quite clear, for example, that a Town Player has Designation = Hostile. Period. Because their Win-Condition 'ends the game and exclude other Parties (i.e. Scum) from winning'. So an Investigation of a Town player will return a Designation of Hostile, regardless of who is doing the Investigation. In fact, it would appear that all players have a Hostile Designation unless they are Nonhostile Third Party...unless we have a 'Third Faction' with it's own Wincon that is independent of the rest. There is this from rules and regulations: www.idlemafia.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=poll&thread=2035&page=1#97275
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Sept 26, 2012 10:44:02 GMT -5
Pleo, your results will be considered provisional regardless. You aren't Town and can't be trusted to have the same motivations as Town. Even if we're able to confirm that you are non-hostile, we can't ever know your real wincon and will never know if you've achieved it or have work left to do that might be at crosspurposes to what Town is doing.. So what's your theory for why I'd lie? Before I've won, you think I'll lie because...? After I've won, you think I'll lie because...? Saying I might be lying isn't helpful if there's no reason to think I'd lie. Even assuming that you're 100% truthful, you've still put Town in a position where we have to deal with you. You have to deal with me whether I've claimed or not. You have to deal with every player. Just because you'd rather ignore players who haven't claimed, doesn't mean it's better that I should be dealt with before them. My working theory is that I will not leave the game even after I've won it. There's no evidence in either my role PM or the game's rules that winning third parties exit the game. Why have you chose this side of the coin to be the correct one? Have you already asked the mod if you leave the game upon meeting your win condition? What motivation would you have to play once you've already won? Because I'm playing by the rules we've be given and the role I've been given, and neither of them say anything about removing from the game players who've achieved their victory conditions. If you want to play following some hypothetical rules you can imagine, go ahead, but I don't see the relevance to this game. My motivation to keep playing is that I like to play mafia. What's your motivation? My working theory is that I will not leave the game even after I've won it. There's no evidence in either my role PM or the game's rules that winning third parties exit the game. Your "working theory" is all well and good, but it's not my working theory and I think it runs counter to good game design. If you remain in the game having won, even if you decide to continue playing - and assuming random distribution of roles the game creator could't have known when designing the role whether it would go to the sort of player who would keep going with nothing to play for - you have no motivation to support Town. You could decide it would be more interesting to help the Scum. You could decide to try to help out a hostile third party. You could decide to just play randomly, and introduce anarchy. The point is, you would no longer be a part of the game in a meaningful way, and thus no one could predict, influence, or depend upon anything you do. So. Pollux's games have always been well-designed. You are asking us, collectively, to: 1. Accept that he has included this poor design element here - not just consider it as possible, but affirmatively accept your self-serving "working theory" as true and guide our actions based on it; AND 2. Assume that, having already won the game, you will continue to act in our collective interest despite having no particular reason to do so. That's fine in general, but there's no evidence that players get removed from this game. If you want to assume the designer has left out important rules, that's your prerogative, but I'll play based on the rules we've been given. And, like, KidV, you seem to be trying hard to remove any trust from my investigations. While some mistrust is useful for town, I'm not so sure the pushing you two are doing is more helpful to town than scum. Assuming you are telling the truth, we will never get confirmation of anything you say. Your death will reveal that you were not Town. This confirms nothing. Nonhostile third parties are not just de facto Town. I've always been interested in this - and Roosh figured it out in the last Arkham game, played definitively to help the Scum win, and swung the endgame that way. Even if you're telling the truth about your alignment, your intentions will remain uncertain until the game is completely over. Yes, yes, more uncertainty, we wouldn't want anyone to make use of my investigations, would we? :sarcasm: The last Arkham game showed how bad town can screw itself by not making use of third parties. That a third party decided to not help town after two third-parties were lynched the first two Days should not be surprising. Do you want town to go down that path again? Given that I'm third party and don't care who wins, lying about my investigations has no possible benefit. <bolding mine>And this is why I voted for you on Day 1. I do care who wins. It may not make a big difference on Day 1, but once the game gets down to a handful of players, one person who 'doesn't care' becomes a huge liability for Town. I'd simply rather take care of that liability early on, when we don't really have a 'better target'. So you think I'm going to survive until end game unless I'm lynched? That seems improbable to me, especially for an investigator who's claiming to help town. Or are you saying you'd rather have the town mislynch me than scum miskill me? And lack of a "better target" is a poor reason to lynch. Town develops better targets by forcing players to take stands on lynch votes. What information do you hope to develop from lynching a third party?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Sept 26, 2012 10:47:39 GMT -5
Are you asking me? That's not a list of the powers in the game, that's a menu of what I could have the Merc do. I was snarkily asking how you know so much about what we're going to be able to find out about Pleo. And I know the difference between a list of suggested roles, a list of merc actions and a list of all the powers present in the game. Were the former two what I wanted, I would have said a list of suggested roles or a list of merc actions.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 10:52:54 GMT -5
Pleo, your results will be considered provisional regardless. You aren't Town and can't be trusted to have the same motivations as Town. Even if we're able to confirm that you are non-hostile, we can't ever know your real wincon and will never know if you've achieved it or have work left to do that might be at crosspurposes to what Town is doing.. So what's your theory for why I'd lie? Before I've won, you think I'll lie because...? After I've won, you think I'll lie because...? Saying I might be lying isn't helpful if there's no reason to think I'd lie. I don't know if you're being disingenuous or not paying attention. You'd lie to achieve your wincon, of course. If you aren't Town, we don't know your wincon and can't trust you. It doesn't need to go any further than that. You screwed up by informing us we can't trust you, and you've kinda hurt Town in the process by making everybody focus on you instead of on scum hunting. If you really want Town to win, you'll stop fighting this losing battle and let us move on. We're going to lynch you as soon as we don't have a better scum target, which is probably going to be Tomorrow unless you button it. You lost when you claimed, Pleo. That was your bad. Please let the rest of us make the most of it, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Inner Stickler on Sept 26, 2012 10:58:54 GMT -5
We're going to lynch you as soon as we don't have a better scum target, which is probably going to be Tomorrow unless you button it. After all, it worked so well with Mahaloth.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Sept 26, 2012 11:00:25 GMT -5
Are you asking me? That's not a list of the powers in the game, that's a menu of what I could have the Merc do. I was snarkily asking how you know so much about what we're going to be able to find out about Pleo. I don't know all the powers in the game, but I don't think it's a far stretch to assume that there's no power that will reveal another players win condition. Unless you're willing to present evidence that there IS a power that will reveal a win condition, I'd appreciate it if you'd lose the snark and stop looking for reasons to argue with me. You've firmly established in this and previous games that you don't like me, whatever. But you and your grudges make the game less fun, and I'm tired of it. I do my best not to interact with you and to stay neutral when I do, will you return the favor please?
|
|