Golden Sun: The Lost Age Mafia Djinn Edition - Page 115

On May 21 2014 11:45 Cephiro wrote:
First up, the thoughts behind my questioning. While initially reading the thread I noticed 27ninja is a very cooperative person. Which is why I started the whole exchange with her.



She takes part in the discussion a lot and actively, aiming to contribute (or look like contributing.)



Her intention is to try and play as honestly as possible. Which again, is not a bad thing from a town perspective, but if you roll scum and try to play with the least amount of lies possible, it will be hard. The point of interest here is her admitting her annoyance to being called out on her play. She encourages others to share the reasons on hers, yet withholds her own for "reasons", are excused as:



While I definitely agree with the logic behind it, her reasoning doesn't seem sincere. It's as if she wants to put content into the thread, but avoid (for now), making any decisions that may come to haunt her play later. Specifically: She doesn't want to be read as scum. Obviously, no town player does, but her play is (even self-admittingly) aimed at not being read as scum. Even if you are read as scum as a townie, it doesn't mean you can't manage to prove your town-ness. Surely, it's an uphill battle, but for someone putting as much effort as her in the game seems unlikely to be _that_ scared of being a misread as a town. Rather, I feel the fear comes from other players correctly reading her as scum.

Analysis break: My questions, the reasons behind it, and my conclusions of her replies.



The first exchange. My question here aims at finding the natural level of her thought process. It may not be the best comparison, but think about chess. What I'm aiming to find here is whether she thinks about:

1) The current move
2) The reasons behind the current move
3) The follow-up to the current move

Or a multitude of the above. As you can see, she instantly jumps into an assumption that I vote her because I read her as mafia. She doesn't take her thought process further (into different possibilities), into questions such as:

"Would he vote for me for a reason other than suspecting me as mafia?"

Instead, she takes it for granted that I suspect her to be mafia. It fits well with her wanting to play as honestly as possible, trying not to doubt the claims of others. This I feel is a trait belonging to the person.

So here I establish the fact that she doesn't think things ahead. Her thought process is not zero though, but considering the current step with the information given to her comes more naturally. (There are people who naturally start thinking multiple steps ahead.)



Here is my followup. My question is intentionally aimed to hint at a possibility of thinking outside the box. As I came into the conclusion that she doesn't naturally by instinct start thinking things too many steps ahead, I wanted to see the reaction that would come after hinted towards doing such.

Her response is quite interesting. She does correctly analyze on scenario, that is, if I didn't have a proper read and wanted to gain more information on her. There are many others she does not think about however. What I'm most interested in, is this crucial miss: She does not at all consider a possibility where I am scum. Ding ding, alarm bells anyone?

Note how she points out that if I don't really consider her as mafia, I shouldn't be voting for her. Yet at the end of her post, she asks why I'm reading her as mafia. This means that she thinks (knows?) of me being a town player suspecting her, rather than any other possibility. Why could I not be a scum player trying to start a wagon on her? She doesn't even go through this option at all, even after being hinted to think outside the box. It's as if she knows I'm town. That's not possible unless she's scum.

On to my third question:



This question was mainly to confirm. I was fairly certain that she does not intentionally downplay her ability to mislead her opponent. Combined with the logical deduction of her naturally not thinking ahead, and with her honest tendency to answer questions, I have no reason to believe she'd be lying about this one either. It would be possible to downplay or not reveal your scumread to try and trap a person into a situation which essentially confirms them as scum to other players, or many shenanigans of the kind. Her response however is strictly related to her own confidence about her read. If she's sure about her read, she'll go for it (no downplaying). If she's unsure, she'll work to be able to trust her read enough to convince others. (Upping her own play.)

With this I come into the conclusion that she is not downplaying her abilities when responding to others, or in any questions that she replied to me. This is exactly why I consider the 2nd question where she does NOT EVEN CONSIDER ME AS POSSIBLE SCUM extremely alarming. Also take in consideration how interested in she is in the reasons why I suspect her to be mafia. She doesn't just ignore and wait for me to actually provide something, but she actively asks for it again and again. If not combined with the above, I would see this as a townie trait, but I feel she is trying to get to know her mistakes/flaws in early play so she doesn't make the same mistakes later on.

TLDR:

1) Is afraid of being seen as scum
2) Extremely co-operative due to not wanting to be looked upon badly, refer to point 1.
3) Ignores the possibility of the player questioning her being scum.
4) When suspected, wants to know the flaws in her play to not repeat the mistake later

Like literally, for one moment she doesn't think I could be scum trying to push her for mislynch.

27ninjabunnies is mafia, and needs to be lynched. My vote stays where it is.

Opinions?

On May 21 2014 07:40 jampidampi wrote:

Unguarded? To me it seems that she is very defensive here:


She has "a pretty damn good reason" to avoid my question, yet she anwears it. Earlier she said that "we definitely have a mafia or two" but now they are not necessarily scum. Brining out the newbie card, defending accusations that don't exist. I would definitely not call this post unguarded. Based on this I wouldn't clear bunnies so easily, but now you're interesting. What makes you think she was "unguarded" in this post?

+ Show Spoiler +

On May 21 2014 07:56 jampidampi wrote:

It still kinda baffles me that you could ignore such a heavy contrast to your generalization about bunnies play. Makes me think that you didn't actually put that much thought into it, which makes me think you might be scum.

It's soon 2 AM here, so see you all tomorrow

On May 23 2014 00:51 Hapahauli wrote:


I'd like your explanation to this:


Regarding the bolded, Yell0w flipped town in the game in question - how does it make sense for you to want to kill bunnies for those reasons?

Also, your post here gives absolutely no indication that you actually read or thought about Cephrio's case, which just rubs me all sorts of wrong ways.