Newbie Mini Mafia

On November 02 2011 00:48 Toadesstern wrote:
got home from university now and yeah let's get a little analysis what happened last day.

Let's just pretend we don't know a thing. In that scernario everything's possible. I could be green, I could be red, Skrammen could be green and Skrammen could be red. Same with Zanfa and risk but I'm going to talk about Skrammen and me since the two of us are the main subjects in this thread right now.

1) Both red
Let's start with the easy one and pretend both Skrammen and I am red. In that case the two of us are stupid and I'm blaming him to be mafia while he is blaming me to be mafia. I know we're not really blameing each other but I did vote for him so I guess that counts, too. That does not sound like a good plan for mafia imo.

2) Both green
Next possibilty: We're both green. If that turns out to be true towns horribly fucked. Not because of the fact that both of us are green but since we didn't even get a majority on a green while mafia is probably even helping us or at least spreading their votes and therefore we might have 1 or 2 mafias on Skrammen as well. And still we don't get a majority. If that's true we got a major problem because we're not going to get a lynch anytime soon (= free kill for mafia without having the chance to kill a mafia or at least get GRANTED information). => pretty much everyone could be mafia because they're able to vote whoever they want without having to manipulate votes at least a bit.

3) Skrammen green, I'm red
In that case town got a heavy problem as well. Skrammen was closest for having a majority and it's pretty much the same as the second possibility: I'm mafia and I went for a wagon issued by someone else and still town hasn't got a majority.
That would mean that out of those 6 votes probably 2 or 3 votes are issued by mafias (my vote at least + maybe my buddies) while 3 townies voted for Skrammen, 3 voted for me, 2 voted for Zanfa and 1 voted for Chocolate. That's not exactly what you want to do as town, no matter what.

4) I'm green, Skrammen is red
In that situation mafia is probably not going to vote for skrammen in the first place. They want to safe their buddy as long as it's possible without leaking information of who actually is mafia out of votingbehaviors right before the deadline. Also this would mean we got at most 1 mafia voting for Skrammen (that is if they got balls). I doubt they got the balls to put their mafia buddy on a 6-votes position themselves, just to make those other 2 mafias really hidden. There could always be a hero votechange 1h before the deadline which would have made a lynch. So in that scenario we probably got about 5 townies voting for Skrammen, maybe it's even 6, while mafia is trying to get us on someone else. Therefore they got either 2 votes on me, 1 vote on me + 1 vote on zanfa or 2 votes on zanfa (the third one is Skrammens vote on choc), while 3 townies did not choose to vote for Skrammen.


For me it's kind of clear. I can rule out possibilty 1 (let's face it, noone's that stupid).
I think 3 is pretty unlikely. I just think town should be able to get more than 3 votes on a single person without mafia therefore I think there's no mafia votes on Skrammen. If there are we're really fucked.
2 and 4 could be possible in my opinion. Having 5 or 6 townies able to focus their votes on 1 single person while 3 are not sure what to do sounds reasonable for me (compare with example 3: I don't think we got only 3 people being able to focus their votes while the rest is spreading their votes for whatever reason).
Therefore I'd say its 4 > 2 > 3 > 1

I'm still not saying I think Skrammen's 100% sure red, and if he's green than risk is green as well. But I think it's a better explanation than the two of us being green or 'me red + Skrammen green' or both red.

On October 31 2011 01:19 Drem903 wrote:
Are you able to change you're vote after you have voted?

If you're not able to change you're vote, then we also have to be very suspicious of zanfada. We both randomly chose a person to try and encourage discussion, but he actually voted. If you can't change you're vote, then that seems suspicious to me, as he seems in a hurry to lynch someone (anyone). If you can change you're vote, then it's no big deal, but it's still something to consider.

On November 01 2011 03:28 Drem903 wrote:
I'll be the first to admit that i am not particularly talkative, although that's mostly because i don't have regular computer access at school.. I have been reading the thread through, and although i still hold zanfada in suspicion, i will also have to agree that SKrammen has not really contributed that much either.

His only notable post just recounts information that everyone should know (though some may not have read the thread too carefully and could've forgotten). Although i feel the need to point out, that SKrammen did call out Zanfada for being hasty to vote (even if he could later rescind the vote). If they were both scum, then it wouldn't make sense for them to call suspicion upon one another.

Zanfada also hasn't posted in a while, and the only notable parts of his posts were: asking the blues to post more frequently (though not to identify themselves), and to defend himself from hacklebeasts own accusations.

So, the people i'm currently very suspicious of are: SKrammen and Zanfada. When i get more time to really look at everyone's posts this might change, but it's just those 2 for now.

##vote Zanfada

On November 03 2011 03:21 Drem903 wrote:
##vote Toadesstern

Reasons:

1) His posts are long when a simple reply could answer the question (disregarding his analysis post on risk). As scum he's using longer posts to try and cover all possible points that could indicate him to be Mafia.

2) The only person who would benefit from Risk's death is Toad. Now, my earlier statement on that was it could be a Mafia ploy to distract us, but that would also be immediately obvious so it could be a double trick (kill risk to get suspicion on toad, but we realize that and stop focusing on toad, and then toad is mafia so it was just a convoluted trap that could work). At this point it just gets into an infinite chain of back and forth.

3) one of his earliest posts was to tell blues to post more frequently, which could have been a way to encourage the new Blue's to help the town, or (more likely) try and make them a mafia target.

Anyway, now that i'm a genuine target. As i said, my reasoning for not lynching SK was that my suspicion was not enough to risk lynching him if he's town. If Rammen was town, then we would have ended up losing two townies on day 1, leaving us with a bare majority (we would have 6 out of 10 people), which means every one of us would have to agree. The risk is that if one or two mafia make even an ok case, some town may agree with them and then we get split vote once more.

I wasn't convinced enough on SK to vote for him so i didn't. This is only my first game, so maybe that's just a nooby mistake and it's usually worth it to take a chance on the lynch, but i just didn't think it was in the town's best interest to take that chance.

On October 31 2011 23:10 Skrammen wrote:


Ah. Well, you see I was only trying to clarify some things so they are clear. I did not however, encourage it.

+ Show Spoiler +

I think we both might be talking without saying anything now; both of these things are quite obvious, yet we both had to say it. What I said was just that; A head's up just in case people did not know. Honestly I think this is pretty bad grounds for accusations. I still maintain that a vote 4 hours into the game is pretty suspicious, but not enough to be convinced he is red.

+ Show Spoiler +

This is his answer to why he did it, and to be honest, it worked, he got stuff going which is good. I will be keeping an eye out, but at this point his reasoning seems good enough for me. As you said earlier, delaying discussion is indicative of scummy behaviour, or perhaps it might not be? An elaborate ruse?