|
There is less than a 50% probability conditioned on the history of past games of there being EITHER a jailkeeper another medic or both. Therefore this isn't a risk at all for the mafia.
Secondly, you're basically using a "It would be too obvious if I were Mafia, therefore I'm not Mafia" argument which isn't going to fly. The wine is in front of you, not in front of me, scum.
I have to study for finals now, so I'll see you guys next cycle. That said my vote is in and I've cast my save via PM already in case I don't get lynched this day cycle.
Recommend voting clawtrocity and tofu immediately.
|
I woke up early on final exam day so I guess I have a few minutes to post.
1.) Why am I so aggressive to the point of nonsensicality?
I want to place pressure on players. Inexperience implies high vulnerability to pressure. Since I know I'm not scum I have nothing to hide by running around randomly placing pressure on every player who gives me reason to doubt their cool headedness. Contradictory roleclaim by clawtrocity and subsequent suicidal roleclaim by tofu were typical actions I was hoping to see from such pressure.
2.) Why did I not reveal my medic role immediately after Claw's reveal?
I did if you were watching carefully. I wanted to do it in a measured fashion until I saw Claw's reaction immediately after my casting a vote for him. Once I was reasonably confident I made a very obvious counter claim.
3.) Why am I suddenly more interested in Tofu than in Paschl?
A bit of a.) delayed reasoning based on my focus on Claw's text that didn't make it obvious to me until about the time I placed my vote for Claw that Tofu's role claim was either conditioned entirely on the probability of their being more than one protective townie role or his being suicidal/scum. b.) his subsequent "defense" when I began to pressure him became exquisitely suspicious. In particular, his rebuttal of my accusation:
On May 02 2012 13:14 FirmTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 02:48 Gummy wrote: Here is my logic:
Claw is not medic, but is banking on there being "another" medic who will waste his save on him since he has now "revealed" himself as the medic.
Tofu revealed detective contingent on Claw's being medic to save him. But this reasoning is inherently flawed since he is in the best case dead second night. Both revealed means night 1.) mafia kill medic -> 2.) mafia kill detective. This strategy is so obvious that these night kills won't even reveal any information as to the identity of the scum. Thus, we can infer that there was collusion between Claw and Tofu's role claims. Therefore, if one is scum, so is the other. Say what? You're passing this off as...logic? First of all, mafia won't attack Claw unless they wish to take a HUGE risk. They'd essentially be betting that there isn't a second medic out there, just to kill a claimed medic. It's a bad idea, no matter how you look at it. They'll need all the kills they can get from night to night and risking a non-kill on someone who might get healed is a bad idea. Your conclusion of my death by night two does not follow from your premises. Therefore, your argument is logically flawed. Yes, it is a possibility I may die on night 2, but there was a possibility of me dying on night 2 even if I didn't claim detective. I think my roleclaim is forcing the mafia's hand as we speak. Let's assume mafia takes the enormous risk. EVEN IF Clawtrocity dies night 1, a jailkeeper is always out there to protect me. Furthermore, the fact that you want to kill me after I claim detective is extremely scummy. Do you really think Claw and I somehow planned all this out, the roleclaim and everything, as a mafia team? It would be a very foolish long-term strategy for mafia, because if either one died for ANY reason, the other would be incriminated immediately. I am not so short-sighted.
The bolded section, from the Mafia's perspective is not even a risk worth considering. His entire rebuttal rests, then, on an assumption by the Mafia that there is a >50% chance of there being another protective role in the town and that protective role is somehow willing to waste a vote protecting two suicidal roleclaims instead of a very likely useful and cool-headed townie like Demorcef.
The question in the thread
On May 01 2012 10:38 FirmTofu wrote: Hi! I'm very excited to start playing this game. The last TL Mafia game I played, I got lynched pretty early because day ended earlier than I expected and I hadn't said much, but this time I can assure you that I will be a lot more active.
So far, I feel like I can trust Clawtrocity and Gummy. Paschl seems a bit...meh, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Matriarch could be anything, it's hard to say. Ange777 is either scum or is very inexperienced. I've got my eye on her in particular.
I want to attempt to do something, but first I need a question answered.
Are doctors notified int he event that their heal ends up healing their target? Is the healed person notified that they they have been attacked and healed?
Was already explicitly answered in the pre-game chatter. I found his re-asking that same question particularly suspicious and the answer he received to that question entirely inconsistent with his legitimately being a detective. While no mention is made of the actual result of the medic's action, for example, that somebody's being alive and nobody else being dead means either 1.) My save was effective 2.) Townies have more than one protective role. 3.) Mafia be trollin'.
So then, after going through a few practice exams, I came back and thought about why that question would need to be answered, and most obvious reason I could see for it was to open up a medic roleclaim by somebody with whom he had previously been in communication. Since only mafia are allowed to privately communicate and since I was, by this time, convinced by Claw's scumminess, my attention turned entirely to Claw.
This following exerpt:
I claimed detective because I see it as the best way for me to stay alive. I explained why in my second post. If you see any problems with that logic, feel free to poke holes in it and I'll be glad to answer. These ad hominem arguments aren't getting us anywhere other than, "You're scum because it's scummy to claim on day 1!" Please provide some reasoning to back up your accusations.
in particular became damning in my eyes. "I claimed detective because I see it as the best way for me to stay alive." It's not that I don't buy that logic, but rather I don't buy that anybody would be legitimately foolish enough to believe that logic. Turning to his second post, reproduced here:
On May 01 2012 18:01 FirmTofu wrote: Clawtrocity, I am going to assume your Medic claim is true and ask you to heal me.
This is a win-win situation for us and I'll tell you why.
1) If Clawtrocity is mafia, he will not want me dead because my death would imply he is not the medic. He is half of his team. My life for his is a great trade for town. 2) If Clawtrocity is medic, he will heal me and I am completely safe from death. Mafia will be afraid to attack me because they fear Claw is telling the truth. 3) If Clawtrocity is vanilla townie, mafia will still be afraid to attack me because they fear Claw to be the medic.
HOWEVER, there is one potential hole in my plan. Claw could be vanilla townie, and I may die tonight. If this occurs we will be in a very bad position going forward. I am confident that mafia will not make such a bold move because the chances of success are minimal.
Let's look at this reasoning based on maximizing expectation of surviving. Presume, for the sake of argument, that he is the detective, he believes Claw's claim, and he is genuinely trying to stay alive. What is his probability of being targeted after Claw's reveal on the first night? The obvious answer is that it's the same probability he enjoyed of being lynched had he not revealed Detective himself. He, in no way, increases the probability of survival of himself or the medic on the first night since the medic cannot heal himself. What about night 2?
Presuming 2 lynches and 1 mafia kill (on the presumedly legitimate medic), there are 6 townies left in the second night. He is sure to die.
What if he had not revealed himself? Then his probability of surviving to make a second ID is at least 5/6. Giving him a 5/6 probability on day 3 of having 2 reveals ready to go on the remaining 5 players. If the town believes him, the town wins, since the majority of the town has been identified.
Now there is nothing complex or subtle about this line of reasoning and I am not convinced that Tofu would have been oblivious to this prior to his claim of such a vulnerable and valuable role...
Until we take the counterfactual where he is not detective and knows that he will not be targeted either of these two nights. Well then, his hope would be that he could bullshit his way through day play. Then be in the same situation on day 3 with 2 bullshit reveals. Now, his only task remains to stay consistent with his flawed logic. If the town believes him, Mafia immediately win.
Now I reiterate... there is no WIFOM going on in this reasoning here and no circularity is implied. I am merely laying out optimal strategies for Tofu given two possible states of the world. In one state of the world (where he is actually detective), his strategy is suicidal. In another state of the world (where is not detective), his strategy makes only makes sense insofar as his opponents are not clever enough to pick out the aforementioned sub-optimality.
And as far as text-based Mafia goes without knowing people's prior personalities and/or tells, suboptimality of strategy is all you can really use to incriminate somebody.
The next question is "Gummy, why are you so noble as to place yourself in the crosshairs?"
Well this is easy to understand based on the prior train of reasoning. I am sufficiently confident in Claw being scum, that my being killed off tonight will leave the town in a 6 v. 1 situation. Simplification in such games always works in the majority's favor.
Also, I'm just a really good guy. <- not actual reasoning
So TL;DR: Claw is definitely scum. When I'm dead after the first night, presume Tofu as the subsequent prime suspect.
|
On May 02 2012 15:02 Clawtrocity wrote:That's about the best I'll get out of Gummy then. I was merely telling him he wasn't mafia to trick him into getting defensive. In a nutshell if I called him out as being mafia he'd say I was stupid and move on, but because I told him that he wasn't mafia he inadvertently got defensive and used a defensive mechanic called projection. If you notice in his post he claims this: Show nested quote +Clawtrocity has already become ambiguous with his language meaning he is backing off from his role claim, without any kind of real justification for why he faked his role claimed in the first case. Show nested quote +As a martyr, he could be buying the real detective at least 2 nights of unchecked reveals. Legitimate reason to lie, How is it ok for Tofu to do it, but not okay for me to lie about my role? I believe he's projecting himself onto me which is why he claimed Medic. He's trying to say that I'm the one that's sneaky and lying, even though he did the exact same thing. If you look hard enough you'll see projections with everything he says. He admits that lying is ok, but condemns me for lying even though he lied as well. So if we take into account his love to project himself onto everyone else then we can also take into account the fact that he is accusing everyone of being scum. That in combination with his slightly defensive attitude and role claim after I said he wasn't scum makes me think he's scum. At worst he's a citizen who's skill has gone way to much to his head At best he's a scum who'll lie and bullshit his way around until eventually getting lynched while his teammate sits in the back and does almost nothing. ##Vote Gummy
There is nothing categorically wrong in this game with lying.
What matters instead, is whether or not you can deduce lying as an optimal strategy given a set of beliefs or objectives. Claiming to be a medic when you're not a medic is only optimal insofar as to be a martyr. However this is only conditional on a belief that there is a high probability in there being a real medic, which using the history Ange777 posted as a Bayesian prior, is only 50%. So we are expected to believe that Claw would be willing to suicide himself with 100% probability on night 1 for the sake of protecting a role that has only a 50% chance of existing, and would only have a 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 (depending on how day play goes) of being targeted anyway.
That is not consistent with the victory conditions of the townspeople. There should really be no doubt in anybody's mind that Claw is scum...
On the other hand, claiming to be a vanilla in case of an actual role, as I did, is consistent with my aforementioned strategy of placing pressure on people to role claim. Cool headed, townie-faction should optimally claim either Vanilla Townie or just flatly refuse to role claim as a number of players correctly did. So conditioned on the fact that I needed to make the "ROLE CLAIM NAO!" act convincing and I needed to make a role claim of some sort, I was much safer claiming Vanilla than an actual role, since it is a dominant strategy in expectations, conditional on role claiming and the given roles where you can't save yourself (especially with a potential roleblocker), to claim vanilla. I've already worked through the cases as to why this is so for the roles of detective and medic (see this post for medic and previous post for detective). The logic for jailkeeper and vigilante are basically the same.
Thus my lie is consistent with my being in the townie faction. Claw's lie was not.
|
Also. Paschl is legit. I never had a real reason doubt him and I was just placing generic pressure on him after he seemed a little too eager to make friendlyz in his first few posts.
|
@Observers: How am I doing? :D
Poll: How Pro is Gummy?Crazy pretentious douchebag. (10) 56% Obvious scum is obvious. (4) 22% Greatest natural to ever play TLM. (3) 17% Kinda schizo. (1) 6% 18 total votes Your vote: How Pro is Gummy? (Vote): Obvious scum is obvious. (Vote): Crazy pretentious douchebag. (Vote): Kinda schizo. (Vote): Greatest natural to ever play TLM.
|
Dang, I wonder who voted for (Obvious scum is obvious.)
|
Wait.... what if my initial banter with Paschl was planned out so we didn't appear to be a pair of mafioso, and then Claw and Tofu just happened to make poorly thought-out plays and Paschl and I are just secretly laughing between ourselves on a secret IRC channel somewhere, secretly?
Since this is a newbie game, it's kind of hard to tell between innocuous shitty play, as from myself, and genuinely scummy play, as from Claw. Maybe it's like Garena HoN where
♬ Anything is possible! ♬
|
Ok. Mental masturbation is just too fun. Back to studying for my game theory final. xD
|
On May 02 2012 05:00 DeMorcerf wrote: ...Seriously, I feel like you are burying us with your posts Gummy. That huge poll...what? Distractions and spam = scummy, not helpful.
(dahdum is correct, and Gummy and paschl are wrong.) In this game, LAL is best. It is wrong to suggest that Town all have an incentive to lie. An honest Townie can be quite powerful. Once a Town player has lied, even with good intentions, the rest of us can no longer trust him for the remainder of the game. Hence, there is no justifiable reason for us to lie. And since we need at least one plan to stick with, we should lynch all proven liars.
Claw, I think you are overthinking things. The Mafia will not avoid hitting you because they think you are lying: they are just as likely to hit a townie by randomly hitting someone else, so their best bet is to hit you with the chance of you having been honest (since liars get lynched). A revealed DT and medic are not going to be left living after 2 nights. The Mafia cannot and will not risk letting Tofu live any longer than that because with only 2 members they can't afford the chance he is DT and manages to finger one of them.
Took a shower and I feel awake! Yay Caffeine!
A stronger strategy than LAL, especially in newbie games, is LSP or Lynch Suboptimal Play. If people play strategies that are not rationalizable given their claimed set of beliefs, either they don't know what they are doing or they are lying about their beliefs.
LAL is too restrictive a solution concept and when brought to a logical conclusion, everybody posts "I am a vanilla townie. I don't know anything" as often as possible and no information is brought out.
Bullying people into making hasty plays is a much stronger strategy, imo. Even if that bullying requires some lying on my part. As far as I'm concerned I'm a dead man walking anyway, so I might as well get as much information out as possible for you guys before I get shot in my sleep tonight.
|
A stronger strategy than LAL, especially in newbie games, is LSP or Lynch Suboptimal Play. If people play strategies that are not rationalizable given their claimed set of beliefs, either they don't know what they are doing or they are lying about their beliefs.
Glossary
Information set: A set of states of the world between which a given player cannot distinguish.
Information partition: A set of nonintersecting information sets. Each player's information partition may differ from every other person's. I don't actually use this term, but it serves to place the previous term in context. A person can be said to be "omniscient" if all his or her information sets within his/her information partition is of size 1. A player is said to have "imperfect information" otherwise.
Strategy: A mapping from an information set to an action. An example would be "If I am here, I will play this action with some probability." In Rock paper scissors, since you don't know what your opponent is playing, your strategy can only be a probability distribution on R, P, or S. You can't say "If my opponent plays rock, I'll play paper" since what your opponent will play (Rock, paper or scissors) are all in the same information set. In chess, however, you can say "If my opponent plays E4 for his first move, I'll play E5 for my first move."
Belief: In a game of imperfect information, this is a probability distribution conditioned on you being in a given information set over the possible states of the world in that information set. For example you can say in Rock Paper Scissors, I believe that my opponent will play Rock. Thus, your belief places a probability of 1 on rock and probability of 0 on the other two actions playable by your opponent. You can say that a strategy is optimal with respect to a player's beliefs if he plays "Scissors" in response to a claimed belief of Paper.
Correct or Reasonable Beliefs: There are some beliefs that are obviously incorrect. Computation of correctness of a belief is rather pedantic and involves taking limits. As far as is necessary to understand, when I use the term "reasonable beliefs" or "set of beliefs" I am referring to the "Support" of reasonable beliefs, or that is the states of the world one can reasonably believe himself to be in with nonzero probability. States of the world are just different possible scenarios you could be in within a given information set. (Again with RPS, the opponent having made up his mind to play scissors is one state of the world. Paper would be another, etc...)
To expand on this for people unfamiliar with game theory.... We are all playing a game of imperfect information. We can assume that people play rationalizable strategies given their claimed set of beliefs. Rationalizable means best response. In rock paper scissors, this means that I play rock if I think you will play scissors, etc... If, however, it turns out that somebody claims they were expecting scissors, but then play paper, we know they were lying.
But lying isn't important. What is important is that we can deduce from a given set of play, a set of beliefs (see glossary) for which that play is optimal or near-optimal. In the instance where somebody says "I'm expecting paper" yet invariably plays rock, for example, we can deduce that he ACTUALLY was expecting scissors or is just bad.
So while LAL is a good starting point for casting suspicion, we need to see the set of beliefs for which the discovered lie is optimal. If the set of beliefs for which the discovered lie is optimal does not intersect with correct beliefs to be held by townspeople, only then do we lynch them. To illustrate this point with another example... presume that revealing yourself as a role increases your believed likelihood of getting targeted at night if you're a townie, but does not increase your believed likelihood of getting targeted at night if your'e a mafia. Thus, suicidal role revelation is not an action consistent with any beliefs that might be reasonably held by a townsperson. It is, however, almost consistent with some beliefs that could be reasonably held by a Mafia, depending on how we model players' conditioning of beliefs based on information sets.
I've used "imperfect information" "beliefs" and "states of the world." These are all different ways for saying more or less the same thing in somewhat different frameworks. You can simulate "states of the world" in a game of imperfect information by adding an impartial player at the beginning, named "Nature" if you will, who plays a strategy unobservable by some subset of the players. Then we can model beliefs based on what each player believes about which unobservable strategies were played.
|
If this is all boring or irrelevant to you, just see this as me trying to study for my exam in a way that doesn't want me to blow my brains out. :D
|
doesn't make me want to* I am so bad at English.
|
Oh one other important point I didn't mention is payoffs. Whether certain beliefs make sense for a player depends on payoffs of all players. We don't know the payoff of a given player, say Gummy, but if we hypothesize the setup of the game, we can ascertain payoffs for certain roles. Mafia, for example, have positive payoff when a nonmafia is lynched during day play. Townspeople, on the other hand have a positive payoff wherever Mafia have a negative payoff. From payoffs, we can derive beliefs, so in that sense the pedantic computation of limits I dismissed a few posts up is significant. In most cases, however, such computations are simply consistent with common sense.
|
On May 02 2012 22:06 Mattchew wrote: 2 things
No more polls. (They are stupid)
Do not edit your posts. Claw has been warned. The only change in his post is the bold'ing of his vote. This is Mod-Confirmed.
Lots of stupid things are fun though. Some people even find things fun precisely because those things are stupid. More to the point, I feel that polls are a way of anonymously involving the input of nonplayer TL members and gives the game an illusion of interactivity that will draw more observers and garner more interest in future TLM games!
|
On May 02 2012 21:30 paschl wrote: Gummy, its a newbie game. A lof of people are gonna make mistakes because theyre new to the game. Lynching suboptimal play in a newbie game makes 0 sense. I feel like my head just exploded. So what's the alternative? Voting people off via an arbitrary and provably exploitable strategy (LAL)?
|
Day 2 will, in all likelihood have 2 fewer people. Now is as good a time as ever to make as much of the information we have as possible. If we vote a townie off today and mafia land their hit (most likely on me since I've made quite the passionate case for being the medic) , we will be in a situation of 5 townies vs. 2 Mafia, with at least 1 power role for the town gone. That's a terrible situation to be in.
Your reasoning for voting Dahdum is that he's useless. If that's his worst offense, then I recommend you vote for nolynch. Clawtrocity, imo, has not only shown himself to be a liar, but has shown himself to be a liar with motives that could only be scummy. It's not that he's useless, it's that he's actively hurting the townie's position with his play (luring out a detective). Whether or not he is scum, he needs to go.
Despite what Claw warned you of, I am confident enough in my case and the reasoning I have laid out to say that anybody defending Claw or even deflecting attention away from Claw is suspect. There is literally no evidence in this format that could be more incriminating than what has already been presented. So incriminating is the evidence against him that even as his partner in scum, you should be voting for him at this point.
A lot of the faulty logic I've seen so far is "let it play out. We'll have more information later."
You don't get free information in this game. If you don't land a lynch on a Mafia you are in exactly the same information state in the next day, only you're in a worse position than the day before. Anybody can claim to be detective and make something up. That's not information. The only information in this game you can trust is stuff revealed directly from Mattchew and your own deductions based on those revelations.
So when somebody says "He's made himself suspicious enough for us to vote him off later." That is a huge logical fallacy. If he's made himself suspicious enough NOW, then you must vote him off NOW.
|
To make my case a little bit stronger.... I WILL be killed tonight. I have made my power role clear and Mafia will be INSANE not to kill me given that I cannot save myself and nobody has roleclaimed a jailkeeper.
You MUST vote clawtrocity or we will be in EXACTLY the same place as we are right now, only down one and 6/7ths of a townie only up (2/8=)1/4th of a mafia in expectation, since a vote for anybody else is essentially a shot in the dark at this point. Any vote not directed toward clawtrocity is a vote against the town.
Seeing as I'm dead anyway, it would be fair to say that you are either with me or against me. Make my sacrifice worth it
|
You clearly didn't read or didn't understand any of my game theoretic arguments defending my lie and explaining why Claw's lie was not comparable.
There is nothing categorically wrong with the lie. It's what that lie reveals about the underlying beliefs.
Reading tone in your second language on an internet forum is not a valid source of information in a newbie game.
Your statistic on blue roles not getting killed on day one is ridiculous. It's not conditioned on day 1 contestation of role claims. Given that a blue player (myself) came out with a role on day one means that I have sufficient confidence in my accusation to risk myself for the greater good of the team.
To be honest your reasoning of "I will divine the mafia by analyzing tone" will hold us back far more than it will help us going forward.
Vote the obvious scum. Claw IS scum.
|
Is there any way of making an ultimatum in this game? Since I'm not allowed to use a modkill as a bargaining chip, can I say "I will shut up for the rest of the game and post only enough not to get modkilled and vote #nolynch" every day thereafter unless you vote for XXXXX. If so....
I am making an ultimatum here. If Claw is not voted off today, then I will shut up for the rest of the game, only posting enough not to get modkilled. I will vote nolynch every day after this one if Claw is not voted off today. So make your choice between him or me. GL HF folks.
|
If that's not allowed, then I retract the content of my previous post. The retraction of my words, however, does not imply a retraction of my intentions.
|
|
|
|