EPTI haven't played in a game of TL Mafia for years now, and after following some of the past few games, I'd like to participate again.
Newbie Mini Mafia III
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
I haven't played in a game of TL Mafia for years now, and after following some of the past few games, I'd like to participate again. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
Considering that I can confirm myself as innocent, the chance of anyone else being mafia, a priori, is 1/3. The probability distribution will change as people post and reveal their motivations, until I'm willing to lynch someone on even odds or better. Regardless, in the interests of objectivity, it is important to keep in mind the base rate, the false positive rate, and the true positive rate. Any statement can be made by either an innocent or a mafia, and the prior rate is fairly low. Thus, it is important to isolate statements that exclusively mafia would make, or at least to find examples of reasoning that lean towards indicating mafia motivations. This way, we can try to prevent suffering from confirmation bias and scumhunt more effectively. On the topic of zarepath's proposal, I find it alarming. Lynching randomly has a 1/3 chance of success, which is far too low for me to support. Your reasoning, especially, suffers from confirmation bias. In response to this plan, anyone can either a) support the lynch, b) argue against the lynch, and c) say nothing. Since saying nothing leads to modkills, we can eliminate the case. Supporting the lynch, in your argument, is evidence of being mafia. However, you claim that arguing against the lynch is also evidence of being mafia. That is inconsistent, unless you would like to claim which case is more indicative of being mafia. To continue, the "random" process used to select zelblade is also odd. Why not use either an entirely random process (RNG), or one that is motivated by initial evidence (on the basis of inactivity or level of contribution)? In conclusion, I have to defer my support for zarepath's proposal, and I am also inclined to raise suspicions towards him. His plan has a low probability of success, and his procedure for deriving information from ensuing discussion is flawed with confirmation bias. Could we instead opt to lynch on the basis of inactivity and low levels of contribution? The odds are no worse than a random selection, so long as everyone is participating properly, and this encourages the generation of more useful information than zarepath's choice of testimony would. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
In simpler terms, players who suggest courses of action that hurt the town's chances are suspicious, as innocents should never be making these kinds of proposals unless they have much more information than they're letting on. As it's Day 1, this is clearly impossible, so I look askance at zarepath and FakePromise, who both advocate a plan with very low expected value. The other part of my methods take a bit longer to develop, as I need to see more posts before picking up any trends. Scummy behavior is such that it betrays access to hidden information, and then does not adjust accordingly as information is made public to the town. Players who behave in this way are either not updating their beliefs properly (tunnel-vision, confirmation bias, or ignorance are common causes), or updating them according to hidden information (perhaps a blue investigative role, but overwhelmingly likely to be mafia). Does that explain my position more clearly? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
What logic would you claim to use on the first day? There is insufficient data to make any valid attempts at deduction, induction, or hypothesis. With what is available to you now, would you take even odds or better on any accusation? I see the point of the first day as creating the pool of data required for later analysis, and the simplest incentive for players to do that is to lynch them if they don't. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 26 2012 01:02 Simberto wrote: But that does not mean that you necessarily only talk about stuff that immidiately leads to a mafia kill. Generally speaking anything that increases the amount of information we have is a good thing. Even if that information is not really useful now, it can be worth a lot lateron. Don't get me wrong, i agree with you, i just want to prevent us from going from talking about useless stuff to not talking at all. Generally speaking, anything where there are disagreements is good, anything that just states that we are all buddies and everyone loves each other and thinks exactly the same is bad. (As long as it is related to the game) Thus, i would propose that instead of meta-meta talk we should talk about lynchings and plans. Since noone has a plan (me included), lets talk about good lynch targets for today. On my list, this would be zelblade CosmosXAM Rest of the lurkers (TheFearedBeing, DoYouHas, SacredSystem, FakePromise, balt11t) There are other people on whom we do not have a lot of information, but who at least have posted something so far. These might or might not be good targets too, but in my opinion those first two are the most suspicious from what i have seen so far, with zelblade being the most suspicious person who has posted so far, and CosmosXAM being the most suspicious person who has not yet posted. So lets talk about them. Note: I started writing this post, went to class, and came back to finish it. CosmosXAM's lack of activity is odd, but he hasn't posted elsewhere on TL since then, and his posting history seems to indicate a low rate of posting in general. Therefore, I would caution against pushing for lynching him on the basis of this alone. Of course, if he still doesn't participate after rejoining us in this thread, then that would be evidence against him. In terms of zelblade's behavior, it does strike me as a bit unsettled. His tone has been unusually reticient, with the majority of his posts so far starting with some kind of apology. Then again, zarepath's plan put him under the spotlight for no real reason, which is an awkward place to be on the first day. I'm willing to give zelblade the benefit of the doubt for now, as I have stronger suspicions towards other players. To begin, I'm very concerned with zarepath for proposing his plan, and with FakePromise for agreeing to it immediately and with little additional content. Starting with zarepath, his decision on how to retract his plan following our criticism of it reflects a few flaws in his reasoning. He claimed that anyone defending zelblade "irrationally" would have a higher chance of being mafia, but it is obvious that this trap will fail, because rational arguments (as made by almost everyone, barring FakePromise) are enough to shoot it down. His argument against RNG lynching also indicates that he hadn't thought through that proposal, but zelblade discussed that already. Other indicators include his unwillingness to pressure lurkers, low-content posters, and inactive players. He argues that this would only force mafia to post more than the least-active innocent players, but that's exactly what we want: more content from players who would be most content saying nothing. The more they say, the more they're likely to slip up and reveal access to hidden information. Regarding hidden information, I agree that the way the detective and the mafia operate are on broadly similar lines, and both try to avoid painting targets on themselves by pushing lynch targets with public and not hidden information. Assuming that both players are likely to make slips at the same rate, I presume that there are more mafia than detectives, even in this lopsided setup, so it is still valuable to identify such players. Pressuring a detective at worst generates confirmed information. Pressuring a mafia leads to more mafia mistakes. Continuing to FakePromise, I'm just going to reiterate that no innocent player should ever, after a cursory glance, support a suboptimal plan with unfavorable odds when there is still time before finalizing a lynch to press for more information. When you return, I would love to hear your reasoning in defense of this. At this point, and contingent on the other inactive players posting more, I would strongly favor lynching FakePromise. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:39 Simberto wrote: You guys need to stop saying "Lets pressure xyz". It is not really pressure if the person in question knows that you don't really want to lynch them. So, if you say, "lets pressure xyz", you don't actually pressure them at all. If you want to pressure someone, pressure them, but don't just say that you want to pressure them, that is not pressure. Other then that, i am going to bed now, i hope for lots of juicy posts in the morning. I want to hear FakePromise defend himself, and he should certainly have the chance to do so before the lynch decision is made final, but I agree with you in principle. ##vote: FakePromise | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
As for your second accusation, you didn't parse my argument properly. Read my second quote again. It was in response to someone who didn't want to pressure an inactive player, and I said that I didn't agree with him. I understand that it's a double negative, especially if you're (as I suspect) just looking through my filter, but you can trust me to say what I mean. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:21 MidnightGladius wrote: A good Detective can make an excellent case on the basis of his target's public posting record, knowing that that player is guilty, but not having to reveal himself as a Detective. A Detective should never have to pre-emptively claim his role just so that his information can be put to use. As for your second accusation, you didn't parse my argument properly. Read my second quote again. It was in response to someone who didn't want to pressure an inactive player, and I said that I didn't agree with him. I understand that it's a double negative, especially if you're (as I suspect) just looking through my filter, but you can trust me to say what I mean. EBWOP: I see that I've been ninja'd again. This and the quoted posts are responses to Bromancipate. While I'm here, I'd like to ask you about your views on the other players. At this point, your somewhat mishandled aggression towards me is starting to make me suspicious of your own motives. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
I don't agree with not pressuring lurking/inactive players with the threat of a first-day lynch. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
No, I would not. I value my life pretty highly. However, I agree with Simberto that actually putting a vote on him is more likely to prompt him to post, as opposed to just voicing vaguely threatening opinions. Do I think that voting for him adds value to our discussion? Certainly! Do I think that his one strange act guarantees his being mafia? Certainly not! | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 27 2012 04:50 dreamflower wrote: Please note, the voting rules in the OP have been slightly modified from the original to read, "Majority = number of total voters/2 (rounded down) + 1," rather than "Majority = number of players remaining in the game/2) (rounded down) + 1." We hosts decided it was better to calculate the final vote based on the number of players who are voting rather than the total number of players. The change shouldn't matter if all players vote, but it punishes active players less if someone doesn't vote. Qatol believed, and I agreed, that it is unfair to punish the people actively participating in this game because someone is inactive, and it is better to have active players deciding what happens in the game rather than risking inactives causing no-lynches or otherwise ruining the vote. Well, that changes things greatly O_O. This can potentially open a huge can of worms, but first I'd like to ask: How is this reconciled with the requirement, as stated in the "Activity" section of the rules, that all players must vote while alive, or be modkilled? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 27 2012 06:23 CosmosXAM wrote: A no-lynch in my opinion will be better then killing a townsperson even if it does accomplesh little we do lose less townspeople, now I know I am a target and seem to bandwagon but I have yet to cast a vote and would really like to vote out a mafia or a person who seems most likely to be mafia. On the note of who I believe as mafia I still am a little nervous about Fakepromise's lack of posts and reappearance then disappearance. And zarepath because all I have seen him do is agree with people and constantly changes his viewpoints. Chocolate was a heat of the moment suspision based on him pressuring me and I don't really think that he is mafia anymore. So with my vote being able to be cahnged in the event of new information I would like to vote now for zarepath based on his "yes man" attitude toward everything and how he never has a solid opinion. ##Vote: zarepath A no-lynch does not help us. Not only do we give up the chance of you/FakePromise turning out to be mafia, but it also eliminates the information that would be generated by people arguing for/against certain candidates. If we lynch no one, then it's very likely that we'll just be having this discussion again on Day 2. I would have predicted an innocent in your position to pick one target and hit hard, not present us with half-formed accusations against multiple players. As none of your arguments are particularly precise, detailed, or convincing, your voting for zarepath now feels even more out of place. FakePromise's blunder remains more convincing to me, but honestly, at this point you're digging yourself a deeper hole in my eyes. If you don't make a more solid defense before the Day ends, I'm going to strongly favor your lynch tomorrow. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
I've become less suspicious of zarepath since after he gave up on his first plan, and I don't think that slOosh's points are too condemning. Instead, I'm going to make a case against Bromancipate. I'm not going to quote all of his posts and do a point-by-point analysis, because I think it's way too easy to get caught up in confirmation bias at that point. Instead, I'm going to focus on two things. 1) He begins with some strong posts, bickers with me for a bit, and then goes quiet. This allows him to avoid being labeled as an inactive/lurking player, but, if you look at what he's written, there really isn't that much of substance. His most recent post (as of this post) said that he should respond to any new developments near the end of Day 1, but he has had nothing to say on the rather-important motion to switch to zarepath. Considering that the account is actually two people, both of whom are normally rather active on TL, this relative quiet seems out of place. 2) His bickering with me revolves around him failing to comprehend a turn of phrase that he and I in turn quoted a total of five times ("I don't agree with not [...]"). While I understand that using a double negative was difficult to comprehend, the extent to which he pulled on that string seems rather exaggerated. Did you all have as much difficulty as he did in reading that sentence of mine? On January 26 2012 12:48 Bromancipate wrote:You said, "I do not agree with pressuring lurking/inactive players with the thread of a first-day lynch." Note that he even typed it out (presumably, as he mis-spelled "threat"), and omitted typing out the key word "not". This allowed him to make three long indignant posts towards me, again allowing him to show his face and look participatory. When such activity is founded on something that he can then brush off as a mistake, it makes the rest of his posts ring follow. These are the kinds of posts that distract the town's attention, hindering the development of a good atmosphere. Very odd, don't you think? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
Spelling error, the third paragraph, third line should read: "it makes the rest of his posts ring hollow." | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
I'll be back in the afternoon with my updated reads and suspicions. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
Simberto, I like your theory, and I'm going to keep an eye open to what those four say in response. Their voting pattern does seem conspicuous, and from their posts I also get the feeling that they're trying not to move too openly as a bloc when in fact their votes heavily suggest it. On January 28 2012 12:45 Adam4167 wrote: I'm more inclined to think MidnightGladius is scum over CosmosXAM. This is WIFOM but it still generally applies, why would mafia highlight their own teammates inconsistencies? MidnightGladius' pressure vote that stuck is far more suspicious to me. What began as a pressure vote persisted, because FakePromise's play was so shady and unhelpful that I remained suspicious of him until he flipped as an innocent. While I do regret missing a mafia lynch, I would not hesitate to lynch a player in a similar position in a different game. balt11t's filter has grown kind of disgusting. He still has not posted anything of value, and when prompted by Bromancipate, he just reiterated his previous excuses more extravagantly, including a promise that his contributions will "exponentially rise." That's all well and good, but the only player that he's even mentioned has been FakePromise. Considering that he has "been able to watch the game develop, just not post," why are the few posts that he makes so empty of content? I'm getting a pretty strong town read from Adam4167. Not only because his predecessor was inactive (It seems that people with more supposedly involved roles would want to avoid being modkilled), but he consistently highlights errors in other players' reasoning, argues against confirmation bias from slOosh against zarepath, and has been rigorous in his activity overall. That said, I think that his view of zarepath might be rather misguided. The case that DoYouHas posted on zarepath is rather convincing. I was suspicious of him from the start for his plan, but his actions afterwards reinforce my first impression. He didn't immediately back down from his plan, but rather waited until a large enough group of players had moved against FakePromise first. This segues neatly into DoYouHas' narrative. It let him back down gracefully and provided an easy mis-lynch in FakePromise. I wonder, though, what would have happened if he hadn't foolishly posted in support of the 30% lynch. ========================================================================================= In summary, I'm getting scum reads on ballt11t and zarepath. Among them, I feel more strongly against zarepath, whom I will be voting against now. balt11t needs to start making posts, though, or I see no reason to keep him around much longer. I agree with slOosh that it makes little sense for mafia to waste a shot to try and confirm DoYouHas, as they would be far closer to winning this game with an additional innocent dead (another mislynch and it's good game, as compared to giving us at least two more chances, with each subsequent lynch having better odds and more information available). This could be WIFOM, but when one option is just so much better, the mafia don't have as much to gain by choosing the alternative option. Thus, my innocent reads are on DoYouHas and Adam4167. ##Vote: zarepath | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On January 30 2012 11:34 balt11t wrote: After reading the posts that have occurred over the past 24 hours, and seeing that it seems zarepath is already dead, I too will be voting for zarepeth this day. ##Vote: zarepath Posted from my Android device, internet being wonky, will return at 10 EST. (Please note, MidnightGladius, that I had to add one more disgusting post to my filter, but this is not an apology. I wanted to establish this BEFORE you go off on another tangent about something completely unrelated to the game.) You've got to be kidding me. In one post, you have managed to: 1) Barely avoid getting yourself modkilled. Congratulations on fulfilling the minimum number of posts, and getting your vote in half an hour before the deadline. As I checked the voting thread, I noticed that dreamflower didn't even count your vote properly: instead, he has zarepath voting for himself :D 2) Jump onto the zarepath bandwagon with the least amount of content or reasoning of any player. 3) Go another day cycle without providing any reads or analysis at all. 4) Blather without addressing, and even implicitly reinforcing, my previous suspicions. 5) Annoy me. And that will be the last of your scum plays this game. Good night! ##Shoot: balt11t | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
To be optimistic, perhaps the 9:4: innocent:mafia setup would reduce the probability of a roleblocker being in the game. I suppose we'll just have to see what happens. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
 | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
Looking through the mafia QT, I'm kind of surprised that you guys didn't push me harder early on. It seemed like you were all ready to do it, but I suppose you were okay with letting FakePromise die. I'm not sure how I would have responded under actual pressure :D | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
1) Call a shot on balt11t at the beginning of the Night and look at the town's response. a) If it became obvious from balt11t's response that he was indeed mafia, and that the town was in favor of lynching him regardless, I would switch targets and shoot Bromancipate instead, claiming this in the thread shortly before the Day post. b) If I was wrong about balt11t, and he claimed a blue role and provided useful information, I would switch my shot to Bromancipate, knowing that I was probably going to be killed by the mafia during the night. The town could sort out the claim afterward. c) If no particularly useful information came out of the exchange, I would play it safe and not switch targets. In the end, it was pretty clear that balt11t wouldn't be alive for much longer no matter what happened, but I thought about it a little bit more. On the one hand, if I had been right with both of my reads, it would have essentially wrapped up the game. On the other hand, had I been wrong about either balt11t or Bromancipate, or heaven forbid both, the town would have been thrown into chaos and the endgame would have been much more messy. As the town was in a pretty strong position following the first medic save and zarepath's lynch, I ultimately decided to play it safe. Of course, it turned out that my reads were right, but I don't want to be a victim of hindsight bias. What would you have done as a vigilante in that position? Would it have been right to trust my reads and go for the big play, or is it better to just play safely? Alternatively, would I have been better off not calling my shot on balt11t in the first place and either holding onto my shot, or still shooting him and claiming it on the next Day? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 10 2012 14:21 slOosh wrote: Ohhhh ... I thought it was some intricate bussing that wouldn't go through but set up a good failsafe dynamic of giving the surviving mafias town cred ... Would it be good for me to apply Occam's razor more often? That would be quite a coup if they had planned and pulled it off properly. I think it might have been too much of a risk, though, especially if the votes do start to come in, and then you're suddenly forced to either back off, or let your partner die. Even if you do, you don't earn credibility by suggesting bad odds and just "randomly" happening to be right. I raised a hypothesis in the obs QT about a plan where the mafia team defer their first hit in order to have a member claim the hit on the subsequent day as a veteran. In the absence of having a clear blue target, what would be the downsides of such a feint? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
. I will definitely keep it in mind, especially because the only way to disrupt it is to play to the town's favor and forcing more mafia mistakes.I wish that some of the other players would come back and comment. It would be unfortunate if their first game were also their last  | ||
| ||
