|
On August 06 2010 22:14 zeks wrote:
As much as this game is about analyzing and question everything
Its also about trust - laying out possibilities and probabilities. Townies ain't going to be able to win without communication and teamwork. Not everyones going to be a DT and have rolechecks to 100% confirm someone - for those that aren't DT you have to draw the line on who's reliable and who's not. I think eventually everyone should be reaching out to someone during the duration of the game.
Right. Not even "trust", it's "calculated risk". This is what everyone does in every single mafia game, Incognito included.
|
I feel you've made up your mind a log time ago without looking at the specifics and we're just going in circles for the sake of it.
Simple question: if you, Incognito, are a the real hatter in this game, and a red (myself for example) claims to be the real hatter, asking for PM role claims. The town seems to trust him. Do you, Incognito, come clean immediately, or stay quiet waiting to place your bomb, at the risk that the DTs and other blue roles will be exposed?What play do you think helps and/or hurts the town more?
|
If you think all people will refrain, you've been watching a different game. Given how everyone had played up to that point in time, a 90% plan was actually pretty good, and I will take it every time, unless someone shows me the 100% alternative.
Edit: and no, I don't view your other points as valid, I am just tired of going around in circles: we started with you telling me that you're surprised nobody had thought of this huge hole: a single mafia posing as a DT mouth would screw up up for 3 days. We went over that. You also said that Ace had exposed the other holes (read Ace's posts on the usefulness of a hatter vs. circle + red leads). We then went through issue after more unlikely issue, including claims that were factually untrue, and ended up with this:
I also didn't see the harm in having 90% plans, but now I do. Town needs more sincere analysis rather than running around finding and organizing blue roles.
Yeah, ok, should have waited for the sincere analysis.
+ Show Spoiler +FINALLY: I never thought BC was GF because he was high profile so your criticism based on choosing BM as a GF isn't applicable. I thought he was red because he was playing out of character, being totally unhelpful and posting "canned" stuff about how roles are picked without actual attempts to link it to the game. He also told the DTs to check him on day one when he made a list with 4-5 people, putting himself at the top of it. I specifically told the DT NOT to check him since if he was red he'd was the GF. When he finally became active he started making bad arguments, cementing my belief he was red. Of course, this was all probably 95% stuff (and even that only in my warped mind)... so perhaps I should have done more sincere analysis.
|
Do you really think the town would have been in a better place if there was no hatter claim and BC succesfully sacrificed South that day? Even the mafia didn't think that, that is why they were doing it. But you disagree... I am impressed.
And do you not see the absurdity of telling me to do more behavior analysis, then dismissing it since I could not be "certain" bc was the GF? Fine, you're welcome to think it was luck, and wait in your games for 100% confirmation. I'd love to see a single case of behavior analysis that can't tautologically be called WIFOM, or one that is 100% certain.
|
On August 08 2010 04:15 Ace wrote:
???
I think the better scum hunters on this forum use behavior analysis to catch Mafia. Or did I misread what you meant?
Of course, I did the same when arguing BC was red/GF. My point is that it's not 100% certain, ever.
|
In this game, at that point in time, behavior analysis was not going to yield better results. It was a choice between:
1. what went down,
2. letting BC sacrifice South, or
3. lynching a 3rd party.
I think option 2, the mafia option, would not have worked out better since it made BC much harder to lynch. Option 3 would yield an innocent. I don't want to name names, but the reds had given one player the nickname "mafia pet" for their play, there had been multiple leaks and multiple bad plays. I know I would not have been able to correctly pick a red in this situation at that point in time. Remember too that one medic was dead and a Dt was confirmed to the reds.
So you can lecture me about the general virtues of behavioral analysis, but in my view the game was over anyway if we went another route.
|
It was never "the ends justified the means", but "this was the best option on the table". I have nothing against behavior analysis in general, this is after all why we play mafia. But it's not alway the best and only solution, by itsef. In this game I would have failed at it without some pressure on the reeds, something to reveal more information.
|
I can tell you factually that I did not know any of the reds at the time. I had a suspicion of BC, but it was not strong enough to push for his immediate lynch. I was pretty sure that if he was red he'd be the GF based on the "DT, check me!" post, but that was a big if. I did suspect more strongly a few people who were not red based on their play (the "mafia pet" and another player), but even this wasn't strong enough to make me feel like I "had" a red.
|
You can say "you got lucky" but realistically the town played horrifically in a town favoured setup.
Good self-explanatory summary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
