BloodyC0bblers's Mafia XVI - Page 33

On January 21 2010 02:15 tree.hugger wrote:
In games of Mafia, there are degrees of activity. These degrees of activity would persist no matter what roles people got, and since roles were randomly assigned, suggesting that 'Poster A' is mafia because he posts too much is ignoring the fact that 'Poster A' would've contributed significantly anyway, as they're experienced with games of mafia, and comfortable playing any role.

What instead is more important are deviations in posting patterns and word choice. These will lead us more surely to the mafia.

This not to say that anyone is or isn't mafia, it's simply a note of caution. We shouldn't go about lynching our most active and productive members, or else who's going to go about finding the clues?

The reason I announced my candidacy for sheriff/mayor is that I have the objectivity and patience to not consistently make ridiculous judgments.

On January 21 2010 02:30 tree.hugger wrote:


Get used to seeing this, this is excellent.

Taking this in a vacuum, note that outright denial is always deemed suspicious. If this had started with personal attacks against the accuser, and then vehement denials, they'd be headed off the gallows immediately.

This post pulls off a clever switch. It acknowledges that the poster could be mafia, in fact it refuses to debate the point entirely. This is clever, because the easiest people to decide to lynch are those who put up the biggest fight. By conceding the point immediately, this post makes it very hard to take issue with his character.

But it does, in fact, defend itself. Quite strenuously at that! See how swiftly it moves on to plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the reader, by lecturing us on the hazards of killing someone who is not mafia. Of course, the chances of randomly killing a mafia are greater than killing the medic or the detective, but since the chance exists, the post abuses the probability of first decision. Moreover, the post actually then outright implies that the poster is a medic or detective, something that (to me, in my experience) seems to almost ludicrously eliminate the poster from occupying either of these roles. Few people would ever be so careless with their positions if they actually were that position.

The final point of interest in this post is a corollary to the first clause. I'd call the technique 'martyrdom' because the poster professes to not mind dying if only to prove a point to all the noobs in this game. Of course, there are a mix of veterans and noobs here, and of course, the poster is playing to win. But by offering himself up for sacrifice, the poster knows full well that we will not pick such low hanging fruit. The post then, protects the poster by doing the exact opposite of what you might expect, by actually encouraging critics of the poster.

Be wary of these.

On January 21 2010 10:38 tree.hugger wrote:


Yes, because the vocal mafia members are the ones that screw things up like you wouldn't believe.

As for my own candidacy, I promised from the beginning moderation and objectivity. Who would I execute immediately? I don't know.

As for who you should vote for; consider that while the chance of any candidate being mafia is essentially even, it would be unwise to elect anyone to whom a (possible) clue may point to. There is a chance that no-re's page 4 analysis is incorrect, but there is also the possibility that elements of it are correct. As such, it would be an idiotic move to elect someone with even a hint of suspicion. That means that dj_crescentia, and Quickstriker are probably the least safe choices, if only by a small amount.

My vote was for Fulgrim because I wondered if a first-time player would so quickly grasp the concept of this election, and the importance of mafia infiltration. But of course, I'd like people to vote for me too.

On January 21 2010 10:57 tree.hugger wrote:


You're overthinking yourself.

And by that, I don't mean that what you say is all wrong. For all I know, the most elaborate option;
#1 could be totally correct.

But what I mean is that this conjecture doesn't really help anyone. Because you've essentially presented three (of four) options and said that they're all equally likely. But option #4 is just as likely;



So your post doesn't really help us, because it serves to read something into a post that didn't need to be read into.

Just to head off any criticism, I broke down a post in a vacuum earlier (Page 8) but I tried not to steer away from conclusions. I wasn't analyzing the writing to make a judgment one way or another, I was simply trying to point out arguments that should not sway you.

+ Show Spoiler +

On January 21 2010 11:01 tree.hugger wrote:


Ridiculous, what if every single mafia member ran for election, and they all agreed to throw support behind the mafia that had managed to get the most votes. If every mafia member ran for election, than surely the chance of a mafia getting elected would be higher, no?

Again, it's pointless to posit these 'what if?!' ideas because they're usually wrong, and when they're right, they're still useless, because nobody has any way of really knowing that anyway.

Stick to facts and not 'Well if I were mafia, I'd put poison in the wine glass closest to me because you'd suspect something and switch the glasses...." kind of deductions.

On January 22 2010 07:24 tree.hugger wrote:


It's just how I roll.

I have my suspicions like the rest of you, but I really don't have much to base anything on. I'm trying to get people to think the right way, before jumping headlong into analysis. The point is to think for yourself at all costs, and constantly check people's language for clues.

And of course, don't immediately tip people off that you suspect them of something or another. If you tell people you suspect they're mafia because they don't capitalize their "i's" then mafia or not, they'll start capitalizing their "i's".

I've always loved mafia because of the psychology of it all.

On January 22 2010 21:14 tree.hugger wrote:

It was a joke, a joke!

But I guess lunaticman was on my mind because I had searched earlier for this guy's post in the sign-up thread as well, and hadn't found it. I thought of how ironic it would be if someone who hadn't said a single word yet ran in at the last moment and voted.

On January 23 2010 08:20 tree.hugger wrote:


We're going to be making judgments based on facts. This idea is counter-productive and distracting, and I would not vote for it.

Let's be a little more rational here. I think the suggestions for the DT are quite sound, and hopefully already in practice. It's a little difficult to figure out any kind of mafia-proof formula for the medics to follow, but hopefully they'll have a little luck and a knack of guessing.

I'll try to be on a bit, but I just flew to school today and tomorrow I'll be moving back in. But around evening tomorrow, I'll be able to kick the mafia out of our beloved town.

On January 23 2010 13:26 tree.hugger wrote:


We're not going to lynch you because you want us to, now stop being an attention whore.

On January 26 2010 01:20 tree.hugger wrote:
It's difficult to see such a lack of consensus on this first day of voting. But at some point I need to cast a vote, so let me write through my thinking and maybe I can make up my mind en route.

To me the most amount of evidence points to Quickstriker. We've mentioned the repeated references to 'quick' deaths, but what has also interested me is how 'drawing' has appeared (albeit subtly) in both stories.
Here's Day 1-

and Day 2-

QS and d3 are the two players in this game (aside from my own picture, which is of the title character from Dr. Seuss's book The Lorax) which have an illustration in their profiles. If the emphasis is on the drawing in Day2, and the figure of speech used in Day1 was used intentionally, then I see Quickstriker as the most logical choice for lynching.

Unfortunately, the possible references to QS on Day 2 are in separate murders. Here's what else bothers me; the two shots. It seemed to me from the beginning that this HAS to be a clue. Why two shots, when one would've done just fine. In fact, since neither shot hits anyone, the whole episode with the technical drawing and the two shots seems to be the most overt clue we've gathered yet. I can think of two possible meanings- either the user has "2" in their name (of which there are 2 such users.) or it refers to a name with two parts, such as "tree.hugger", "Quickstriker", or "RoyW".

Now to the technical drawing, which has been astutely investigated, with the evidence suggesting Jonoman92 and RoyW, In contrast to everyone else, I found the connection to RoyW the most satisfying, because it seemed to me the right balance between simple to understand and difficult to find. Yet, of my theories of what the number of shots signifies, I find the connection to Jonoman92 much stronger.

Then who? Softer is also up for lynching, and although our evidence against him amounts to a single sentence, the explanation for that is sound, and has really never been challenged, although it hasn't really been backed up either. ILoveKT seems also to have strong evidence against him, yet the interest in lynching him has been minimal, probably wisely as he has not really ever posted and therefore is less of a malign influence than another poster would be.

***

So what's bothering me at the moment, is that almost all of our choices are based on conjecture (QS) and personality (XeliN) and there's really nothing for me to go on. I'm going to wait a little bit more, hear what more of you have to say (hopefully people will post!), and go to spanish class, and then we'll see where we are.

Also, I watched 12 Angry Men last night, and it reminded me of this. Great play, great movie.

On January 26 2010 07:20 tree.hugger wrote:
Hmmm. Could've been worse, I guess. Could've been much better.

I'm not so sure about Double Lynch. Feels like we could've used it whenever, so here's to hoping we get the right clues in the next day post.

On January 26 2010 12:18 tree.hugger wrote:


You only have to prove your innocence if you're mafia. Spend your time finding good clues and making good arguments, and you won't have to worry about falling under suspicion.