EPTSurprisingly Normal Mini Mafia VII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
Notes on the setup: Now that there are 15 starting players, the mafia:innocent ratio is rather uncommon, at 4:11, favoring the mafia, compared to 3  in Normal Mini Mafia I, 3 in Newbie Mini Mafia II, and 3 in Newbie Mini Mafia I. On the last occasion that the town faced unfavorable odds, Newbie Mini Mafia III, the lack of mafia power roles and relative abundance of innocent power roles helped to balance the setup, and I think that it will be the same here. Considering that the town gets a minimum of one extra mislynch compared to the standard setup, I think that the extra information will be especially helpful. Easy enough, right? No need for lurking, bashing, or spamming; I'm hoping for a great game.Trust in Bayes! | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
Silly coding ._. 3 => 3 : 9In response to DoYouHas, this is my second real game here. The earlier ones were way too large and chaotic to be of much use. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 17 2012 10:29 DoYouHas wrote: Newbie Mini Mafia III was 4/9, that is very different from 4/11. I see the normal mafia to town ratio as being 1/4. As such I think we are pretty close and cannot speculate as to the number of roles or what roles are in the game. The difference is not trivial. With 11 players, in the worst-case scenario where we mislynch every day, we lose one full day/night cycle (as the remaining 3 players are simply killed in the endgame). Even if we don't fail to that extent, there's still more significantly more pressure on us at every stage. Additionally, consider that the setup was originally balanced at 4:12, with whatever role distribution was present at the time. After the population odds were changed to 4:11, it makes sense to also alter the role distribution to re-balance it. Also, as my last post did not make it clear, my previous game here was Newbie Mini Mafia III. On February 17 2012 10:35 jaj22 wrote: Oh hey, an early start. I guess that means I'll be here for the night/day posts for a change. This is the first full game I've played. I replaced into Election Mafia as scum: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291720&user=52329 And TL Mafia L as vanilla town: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=253716&user=52329 Feel free to check out my meta. I don't know a good way of starting discussion on day 1, so here's some obligatory lurker-lynch stuff. I hate lurkers. Don't be a lurker. Other than the point that lurking is thoroughly anti-town, why bother playing the game if you're not going to post? Do I want to lynch lurkers on day 1? At a gut level, absolutely. It's not necessarily optimal though. If we have someone who's both active and scummy, lynching them is a better choice. However, that's much more likely if we don't let people lurk, so it's important to maintain a real threat. I've been told by veterans here that it's possible to use behavioral analysis to lynch mafia on the first day, but I honestly am not sure how to go about it. Hopefully, activity will be high enough to render this issue moot, but I have no regrets with lynching lurkers. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
The difference between 4:11 and 4:12 is not trivial. To a greater extent, the difference between 4 : 9 and 4:11 is. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
As you obviously can't ascertain anyone's alignment through this poll, and the polling isn't closed only to players of this game, what exactly about the mafia were you planning on studying? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
However, I don't really get the feeling that he's scum, just new. I don't want to make the same mistake I made last game, when I was certain that questionable Day 1 play by itself meant scum. EchelonTee, you shouldn't be so upset  If you claim that your "he's posting the scum QT" threat was a joke, then you're expecting us to let you get away with saying anything you want, as long as you say that you're not being serious. Secondly, you claim that you never accused sl00sh of being mafia, but there's no denying that he would be posting in the scum QT if and only if he were truly mafia. You're not looking too friendly at the moment, and I have to wonder what might be on your mind. You've had some experience, so I expect better pro-town play from you. And I will be watching. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On the topic of lynching or not: there is no reason not to lynch Day 1. It is the most reliable way for the town to go forward, as we can then begin looking at voting patterns and doing behavioral analysis. If we don't lynch, we're in basically the same spot during Day 2, except with one fewer innocent player. As to who we lynch, I say that we put pressure on lurkers and threaten them with a lynch if they don't contribute. It establishes a basic precedent on the quality of content that we expect out of certain players, and then we can take their future posts and make some contrasts. The common argument against lynching a lurker is that mafia will only have to pretend to contribute, or stay just above the least active players. I say that that's fully acceptable, as both of those behaviors will be red flags in the days to come, especially if the town keeps up and stays consistent with activity levels. With that said, I'm going to put my vote on MannerKiss. He has done nothing for us. MannerKiss, here's your opportunity to show us that you have an interest in helping us win this game. Who is your #1 target so far? ##Vote: MannerKiss | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 18 2012 06:14 gumshoe wrote: In a sample group of 4 random players in a 16 player game with 4 mafia its almost a 100 percent chance that one of the 4 in the random group is mafia, this is not a random group though, none of these 3 specific lurkers have contributed much making them suspeicius which increases the odds of them bieng mafia. Overall if we pick a lynch from of the three random lurkers there is statistically speaking a good chance that one of them will be mafia, because a) one in four players is probably mafia and b) there behaviour is suspicious. I only see three obvious lurkers therefore the odds are not 100 percent of one of them being mafia. There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly. Christ in buckets, it's FakePromise all over again :S Gumshoe's statistical analysis is misleading and flawed. I'd rather not clutter up this topic with the details, but in non-technical terms, he's making WIFOM assumptions in setting up the problem, not counting the distribution of outcomes properly, and I don't even know how what he means by [quote=gumshoe]There is a 60 percent chance rather(15 divided by 5 = 3 three is 20 percent of 15. So the odds of three random players being lurkers is twenty percent, but the odds of one of them being mafia is 60 percent exactly.[/quote] At this point I'm going to have to assume malicious intent. Several of us have warned him about this, and he's continuing to try and derail the discussion. He's been spamming even more than before, using really bizarre logic to defend himself, and he still has yet to provide much in the way of content. In a way, this is worse than lurking, and it's way beyond what I would expect an innocent newbie to do :/ ##Unvote: MannerKiss ##Vote: Gumshoe | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 18 2012 09:31 jaj22 wrote: Ok, screw it. I'm making a case. MidnightGladius: 1. Starts off with a number of completely useless posts on setup. Didn't even do the probability. 2. Makes the usual post on ET vs Sloosh and Gumshoe's poll. Yeah, so did everyone else. 3. Votes the easy target (MannerKiss) with an elaborate lurker-lynch reasoning. 4. Votes the easy target (Gumshoe) because he spams and sucks at statistics. That's it. Low post count apart from the setup filler. No interest in anyone in except the easy targets, and contributing next to nothing to town as a result. I don't think he posted much more in Newbie Mini III, but he had the excuse of being blue there, and it was a slower game (too damn slow). He should know better. Probably much too early to be putting people in bold red, but I'm bored waiting for all the lurkers to post. You're not even going to vote for me? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 18 2012 09:42 MannerKiss wrote: Sorry i've been absent, work related stuff. Trying to catch up on the thread. Doyouhas pretty strong townie feeling to me. gumshoe - trying my best to overcome some scummy feeling from the earliest post, but it seems to have cleared up a little since the poll. Dimmuklok giving me the strongest scum vibe of all so far, (and not just because he's aggressive toward me). ET - also giving off a townie feeling i'll catch up on everyone else when i get home this evening Welcome back! The last we saw you, DYH was your first scumread. Now, he's "pretty strong townie"? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
You and jaj22 are both not making any sense to me. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 18 2012 10:37 Janaan wrote: Midnight, what are YOUR reads right now? You put forward MannerKiss as a pressure vote, then change to Gumshoe one post later because you didn't like his statistical analysis. Do you have any other suspicions? Any decent town reads? MannerKiss is actively lurking and needs to step it up or die. Some of the other lurkers are active candidates for modkills at this point, but he's not, and that means that we should pressure him. However, gumshoe's posting is actively hurting us, and while I'm not certain that he's mafia, I'm growing increasingly convinced. I would consider both of these votes to be pressure votes. I'd honestly rather pressure gumshoe to quiet down and concentrate than pressure MannerKiss to speak up :D My strongest other scumread lies on EchelonTee, for the reasons I mentioned earlier: His sequence of 1) being glad that there was activity 2) accusing me without a case 3) saying he would provide a case 4) telling DYH to support my lynch 5) not presenting a case 6) leaving the discussion seemed really suspicious to me. I'm not going to offer you town reads, because I don't feel that they help the town find and lynch mafia, and they let the mafia know who to target to slow down the town's momentum. If I think a player is town, that doesn't mean that we're in agreement on any particular read, and vice versa. On February 18 2012 10:56 jaj22 wrote: So much for the activity. Neither DimmuKlok's defence nor Steveling's reads have shown up. MannerKiss produced one post with town reads and the obvious target. TKHawkins and Zelblade haven't shown up at all. MidnightGladius apparently thinks that telling people they make no sense is a valid defence. C'mon guys, you can't all be scum. I'm off to bed. Hoping that someone pulls an awesome town-leader performance overnight and gets a proper vote going, because it's going to be seriously tough to get a majority on scum at this rate. You apparently think that nonsensical attacks should be taken seriously. If nothing else, vote with the proper formatting so that it will get counted properly. You're missing a colon at the moment. On February 18 2012 12:23 gumshoe wrote: Wall of text. That's the kind of posting that I really don't to have to deal with in the lategame :S | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
1) My accusations against you have grown in intensity without reason 2) I haven't contributed significantly to town Let's be very clear here. You say that your posting has been getting better, but I strongly disagree. Early on, you had a bad plan. Then, you posted shaky reasoning for your plan. Then, you admitted to lying and misrepresenting the intentions of your original plan. Then, you started posting long lists and walls of text full of point-by-point analysis and confirmation bias. You can't just keep doing this. As to my levels of contribution, you're using that argument in a flawed way. I'm responding to my accusers, presenting my thoughts, and trying to make my positions as clear as possible. The town will have plenty of evidence about my behavior to go through in the coming days. What more can you reasonably expect of me? EchelonTee, you're free to do as you please, but when you say "More to come after this message," that creates some expectations. When you fail to live up to those expectations, that confuses me. As for jaj's case, what of it? I'm not contributing? Really? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
Steven's no lynch was a dumb idea, he said so, and we're moving on. He hasn't tried to dwell on the topic, and so I don't consider that suspicious. DimmKlok's switch? He hasn't even voted yet, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. He is rather quiet, though, and that leads into what I have to say about the lurkers: they have said nothing, so I have nothing to build a case from. If they keep quiet, they'll be modkilled and replaced, and we'll go from there. If they speak up, then I can look at them. Mislynching is gives away so much information in terms of voting patterns and people's posting behavior, for and against. Mafia night kills only generate WIFOM, and there's not much more to be said about that. Right now, we're dominating the thread, and not in a good way. It's creating long argumentative posts and stifling actual discussion as we just bash our heads against the wall. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 19 2012 03:34 jaj22 wrote: 1. If you don't believe me on that point, you can PM Palmar and ask him. Or you can just read Palmar's town play. 2. That's not a pressure vote. I think he's scum. You can tell because I wrote a case on him with his name in bold red text. While his contribution to town is no lower than a lot of other players, he's the one who should know better. I'll be writing another post covering his play since my case shortly. The flaw here is that as soon as we say that "behavior A is scummy," and that "behavior B is not scummy," there is nothing to prevent the mafia from taking your cue and thus avoiding town suspicion. As you seem to know what you're talking about with regard to statistics, you have to admit that P(aggression|scum) is always non-zero. If you really think I'm scum, then vote for me. Actually vote for me, using the proper format so that it will be counted correctly, and so that the evidence will be there for further analysis. I don't like how hesitant you've been on actually pursuing your case against me, since if you had any conviction at all you would have done this right from the start. For what it's worth, though, I don't think that you're scum, just a bored innocent player trying to provoke some kind of discussion, as you said at the beginning of your case. That's all well and good, but if you actually want me to respond substantively, you need to give me something I can actually respond to. I'm much more worried about EchelonTee, considering that he came back and still hasn't followed through on his original promise to make a case on me. He referred to your case instead of providing reasoning of his own, and then told me to "respond or die." Right. Personally, I think he's waiting for someone else to take the hint and push first, much as he prompted you. His behavior lacks accountability to the town and to himself, and that's far more damning to me than any "flashy or aggressive play" heuristic. ##Unvote: gumshoe ##Vote: EchelonTee To provide an explanation for my switch, I made my views on gumshoe clear earlier. Unlike most Day 1 pressure votes where we try to get someone to talk, I just wanted him to post more coherently and settle down. When he still continued to make a ruckus, I began to get concerned. His last few posts have been much better, and after sleeping on it and re-reading his filter, I just can't see his behavior in the context of an informed mafia team effort. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
On February 19 2012 04:50 jaj22 wrote: You're missing the point, possibly deliberately. People are using ET's style as the primary reason that he's scum, which is invalid unless P(aggression|scum) is much greater than 27%, which my experience suggests is not remotely true. If people want to argue that ET is scum, they should use valid reasoning. This is a valid reason. Unfortunately, it's also a very common thing for flashy and aggressive town players to do, so if that's all you have, it's not a good enough reason to lynch. Zbot doesn't need the colon. My vote counted. Anyway, I'm having a crisis of confidence so I'm going to eat something and then re-read. Fair enough. I happen to think that P(aggression|scum) is much higher than 27%, to the extent that I'm not comfortable using it as a heuristic. And if that's not a good enough reason to lynch EchelonTee, then... what is your "good enough" reason to lynch me? I've posted a lot since your first case against me. What in those posts reinforces your suspicions of me? On February 19 2012 04:50 Mattchew wrote: Hey guys... I have read a little but am about to go to Atlantic City for the night. I read through the top 3's filters (ET Dimmukok and Midnight) and I think that Midnight should be the lynch today. ##vote: MidnightGladius You're basically saying that you won't be able to provide any justification until after today's lynch. Are you going to give any reasoning at all for suspecting me, or are you just going to enjoy your free vote with no strings attached? | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
To DYH: My one-liners were in response to obviously empty posts. There was nothing for me to say, but I wanted to let them know that I was there and ready to respond to more thorough allegations. When they never followed up with anything substantive, I had nothing more to say. I'm going to read the rest of your post now. | ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
| ||
