Mafia CLIV: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia (Town Win)

Moderators: Zoomzip, Telleo, bkbkbk, condude1, sjg11

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Happymeal » 11 Nov 2016, 18:53

@everyone

LYNCHING JORDAN IS THE WRONG PLAY. STOMPING HIM IS THE RIGHT ONE.


Recognize this, justy, if jordan is lynched today, is doomed to stomp someone large assuming jordan is town and the game continues. Tonight, Justy still has a chance to stomp jordan if we wait to stomp him. If you lynch jordan today, justy is dead tonight. I highly recommend you stomp him instead.
It's true I'm nervous, but why do you think I'm mad?
User avatar
Happymeal
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 14:08
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Happymeal » 11 Nov 2016, 18:58

shadowfriend1 wrote:
Happymeal wrote:I'm not certain they would put all their chips in a single bag tbh (referring to your last statement). I still believe a large - small team is the team that makes this play.

Walk me through their rationale last night, please.


I thought this would be pretty obvious, but I suppose not.

The general consensus around Justy is that he is most likely town. Now, assuming Jordan is mafia, he didn't stomp justy anyways, but a large player probably would not either. Jordan is a really easy mislynch because the odds of him stomping someone are rather low. A large mafia, to me, would see this and claim that Jordan is the easy mislynch solely because of night mechanics and that's what is happening. I mean, Jordan's in game play hasn't been that great, but, to me, this is pretty characteristic of him. I know Harb said you played with Jordan before, aren't you familiar with his play? This is how town Jordan acts. I'm just saying that I think it's most likely we're being thrown through a loop by persuading ourselves to kill off two players (justy and jordan) and throwing the town into chaos. Am I the only one who sees is as a possibility? I mean, I don't mind stomping jordan tonight because it's, in my opinion, the optimal play. However, I think you guys are setting yourself up to lose if you aren't completely correct right now. After all, with one mafia left, putting us into disarray might be the only way they win.
It's true I'm nervous, but why do you think I'm mad?
User avatar
Happymeal
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 14:08
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Zoomzip » 11 Nov 2016, 19:34

Happymeal wrote:@everyone

LYNCHING JORDAN IS THE WRONG PLAY. STOMPING HIM IS THE RIGHT ONE.


Recognize this, justy, if jordan is lynched today, is doomed to stomp someone large assuming jordan is town and the game continues. Tonight, Justy still has a chance to stomp jordan if we wait to stomp him. If you lynch jordan today, justy is dead tonight. I highly recommend you stomp him instead.


OK Happy, if we're convinced Justy is town, and we're not sure about Jordan but want to kill him, would you be content to have a compromise like this:

If Jordan wins the blue vote, we red vote No Lynch and group stomp Jordan?

Note: If Jordan still has a Hide left to him, then this doesn't work, right? Or rather, we have to lynch him again tomorrow.
Kittens and rainbows. Forever. Wear your makeup like a man.

One of the moderators of the Mafia Form.
User avatar
Zoomzip
 
Posts: 6603
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 05:29
Location: NoVa and The District
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (921)
All-game rating: (919)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Happymeal » 11 Nov 2016, 19:39

Zoomzip wrote:
OK Happy, if we're convinced Justy is town, and we're not sure about Jordan but want to kill him, would you be content to have a compromise like this:

If Jordan wins the blue vote, we red vote No Lynch and group stomp Jordan?

Note: If Jordan still has a Hide left to him, then this doesn't work, right? Or rather, we have to lynch him again tomorrow.


I will agree to the compromise.
It's true I'm nervous, but why do you think I'm mad?
User avatar
Happymeal
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 14:08
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 1

Postby Happymeal » 11 Nov 2016, 20:01

Before starting this, I want to quote myself so everyone can go see whatever day 2 votes they want to:

Happymeal wrote:
I do not have all the quotes I want to use here, but here's all the votes yesterday with pages numbers:

Sjg = Justy (Pg. 48), Unvote (Pg.57), UDC(pg.60), Happymeal(pg.61), Jordan (pg.72)
Happymeal = SF (Pg. 47), Jordan (Pg. 50), Sf (pg. 51), Sjg11 (Pg. 83)
Sf = Happymeal(pg.61), Jordan (pg.70)
UDC = Jordan (pg. 63)
Zoomzip = Sjg11(pg.64), Jordan (pg.69), Sjg11 (pg.77)
Jordan = UDC (pg.67), Sjg11 (pg. 79)
Harb = Justy(pg.67), Sjg11 (pg.79)
Justy = Sjg11(pg.63)



justy wrote:I hope someone finds a flaw in my reasoning about small-med team. I'd rather not get policy stomped today. But I now believe that Zip and others were right and we should lynch medium or small today. Therefore, Sjg.

Yesterday, I felt that him not realizing that small townies couldn't hide could indicate him being larger. Well, perhaps it was because he was small scum and didn't realize town didn't have same quality.

Even though Jordan stated several times his suspicions over UDC, he never voted him. Perhaps it was because Sjg already had vote on UDC and they didn't want to vote together?

Not great reasons to vote Sjg and my vote is mostly based on my analysis of what would happen if scum are small and medium. Also, if only one of Jordan or Sjg is scum, I'd rather take out the one with more votes and hides.


Here's where my argument for sf + sjg begins as far as them being a scum team goes. It starts with Justy creating momentum onto sjg after having a sort of shaky start. Now, I'm not discounting the possibility of Justy faking everything, being sjg's partner, and essentially making himself appear to be a cleared townie, but I have no evidence of that being the case outside of his poor play early on, which isn't much to go by. Eventually, Justty is gonna die regardless, that's just a consequence of the mechanics. If he is mafia, we don't have a lot to worry about.

Anyways, prior to this, there was mainly momentum on me by two players. Sjg and SF:

sjg11 wrote:
Happymeal wrote:Also, I highly doubt it's a large large team. They did not use their optimal play and squash out two small players or 1 small and 1 medium. Whatever combo they wanted to do, they didn't do it. This is why I think this focus on this night play is so dumb. You guys are so focused on what occurred last night, I'm pretty much the only one with a vote in. We have so much info, use it.

But you're voting for shadowfriend? A Large Player? Surely if you don't think a Large-Large Team is likely the best play to make is to vote for a not-Large player? Particularly if you believe in your claimed solid townread on me?

Moreover, what happened to your principled anti-blue vote stance from yesterday?

happymeal


I'm not following how your thinking has developed on two big topics currently. You're not making a lot of sense.


This was the first vote on me on page 61. It was a vote based upon the disparity between my stances and my votes. I still don't agree with the perspective that my vote opposed my perspective on mechanics, but that's irrelevant and if anyone wants me to, I'll explain it more clearly in the AAR.

Anyways, SF had an entirely separate reason for voting me:

shadowfriend1 wrote:
I've started to see a pattern with Happymeal's play: Happymeal tunnels hard each day. Yesterday on Zoomzip, today on me. Yesterday his vote on Zoomzip was placed based on Zoomzip's first post:


Fair enough, right? There's really nothing scummy about making a case. However, I'm providing this background to show his pattern of tunneling, because I write two absolutely massive responses to his case (which took about 3 hours for me to write in total):
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&start=498
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&start=559

If you read them, you'll see I really addressed all of his concerns and some. Certainly, the town seemed to think so, as they had with Zoomzip yesterday, because his case today didn't gain any traction.

So you might think Happymeal's opinion would change, somewhat even, after I engaged with him so fully. Not at all.

I admit that I am not familiar with Happymeal's play. Perhaps this is his style. However, I think it would be foolish to write off scummy behavior as style without any basis to do so. The fact is, tunneling is the precise behaviour mafia fall into when they feel they cannot organically shift lynches. I know this because I am always scared to high hell to shift lynches as mafia, which is ultimately the reason I was lynched in the last two games despite my otherwise fairly townie play. Happymeal shows an almost ridiculous inability to change his vote: even when the forum and his own proclaimed views have clearly moved elsewhere.

Happymeal


Essentially, his claim for me being scum is that I'm tunneling. On top of that, he later comes back with some more to say. However, it's pretty much more of the same with the addition that my stance on blue votes randomly dissolves. The thing that I want you guys to specifically note is the interactions between the two voters. Here's one such example:

sjg11 wrote:Shadowfriend, although I currently agree with a happymeal vote I don't really think your vote reasoning is particularly strong.

Your argument is effectively that happymeal is Mafia and your evidence for this is that he's tunneling a lot?

In my experience, tunneling is something that townies do. A lot. Hell it's something I do as town. A lot. Without realising it. I just flat out disagree that tunneling is a scumtell in and of itself.


Sjg, generally speaking, argues in regards to SF's case not being particularly good. He does this several times. However, they're both in agreement for who they want to vote for. The reason I find this odd is because Sjg is aggressively pursuing somebody, but is simultaneously aiding in the defense of that person. I mean, all things considered, his vote on me remains for a lengthy period of time and he's acting as though he possesses conviction towards this lynch possibility. Why would he defend me against another vote. This is not the way a guy aggressively pursues somebody, regardless alignment. I think the explanation is this:

He wants to distance himself from SF, but not so much that it looks completely forced. He has a bit of a disagreement so in the case that my lynch does occur, he can say "well, I did say that not everything about HM was scummy like others such as sf did" or something along the lines of that. Point being, I think the interaction between sjg and sf was a distancing ploy for a possible mislynch. Now, here comes the rest of sf's case:

shadowfriend1 wrote:
sjg11 wrote:Shadowfriend: What is the full case on happymeal then? Could you just recap why you're voting for him?

I'll give you links to my arguments and briefly summarize them, so you can check them out if you're interested in them. Cool?

NOTE: I just realized I made these links in sort-by-author mode, which I've heard sometimes doesn't work if you're looking at the thread in sort-by-time? Just go to sort by author if you want to view them and they're not working.

  1. http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=266
    Happymeal's Zoomzip vote day 1:
    -Poorly justified
    -Suggested a lack of comprehension of the issues for which he was voting Zoomzip
    -No suggested scum motive for any of Zoomzip's actions
    -Didn't ask any questions or engage with ZZ before placing the vote

  2. http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=271
    http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=273
    Happymeal's opposition to the blue vote plan:
    -You can see my deliberations with him in the above quote for yourself
    -The blue vote plan is extremely beneficial to the town. Happymeal's opposition to the plan is in character with mafia play because it is a pro-town plan.
    -His opposition was not limited to healthy skepticism, but a flat-out refusal to participate on Day 1.
    * Note that he contradicted himself today on that stance, something you pointed out yourself.

  3. http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=310
    http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=318
    Happymeal's case on me today:
    - After I respond to this case, as the above links show, he doesn't move his vote or even consider doing so, despite my detailed counters to all of his arguments. He doesn't even respond to them.
    -Ultimately, he has no case left, but clings to his vote as he did with Zoomzip.
    - This is the part you think could be from a townie as well: sure, but isn't it doing the mafia a mighty fine service?
    -I summarize these points here:
    http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=321

  4. http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=424
    Sjg's post about happymeal's contradictory viewpoints:
    - This is similar to the play I have observed from Happymeal throughout the day.
    - His anti-blue vote stance dissolves randomly.
    - His stance on large players dissolves randomly.

That is the case on Happymeal as I see it.


Basically, the main points come at the bottom. The rest of his case is just pretty much jargon "he disagreed with me, let's lynch him". By pure coincidence, I pretty much viewed sjg as making that childish argument of "we disagree, let's lynch" during our interaction. I'm not sure if that's just coincidence or maybe a thing people do when they want to mislynch somebody, but don't really have the evidence to do such.

UpsideDownChuck wrote:jordan767

I'm going to take a break from playing since I've been sitting at the computer for a while. Of the three non-Large's jordan has given me the least reason to think he's a villager.


To take a small break from the above, I want to say that the reason I don't think it's UDC that is the scum partner who voted for Jordan is because he voted so early and it appeared that sjg and sf voted jordan alongside him to fight the momentum against sjg at some point. I'll point that out later. Anyways, back to the Happymeal vs. Sjg momentum:

Zoomzip wrote:OK, so... I've kinda been silent but reading along since I was getting utterly lost yesterday. My thoughts have clarified somewhat.

1) If you believe in Large-Large, you believe scum passed up an opportunity to get to a 2:2 potential VC by D3. No one has refuted that. But... okay... maybe.
2) It is 6:2 right now. More importantly, we have a backpocketed checkpoint lynch at 3:2 of only larges in a worst possible scenario. I would like the mafia to have to go through that chokepoint. I do not want to give them an opportunity to go from 4:2 to 2:2. The only way we open that door is if we lynch a non-large incorrectly.
3) I was thinking "SJG has written a lot of words on this topic, but I don't buy it because he can't account for the idea that the Mafia passed up on an opportunity to win the game tomorrow. Well, maybe he's running a scum trap to see which of his fellow non-larges will seize on his logic. You know, the way that justy reached for it like a drowning man to a rope. " But -- no, it appears that SJG genuinely believes this. Jordan is apparently pushing WIFOM about the entire thing, which also fails to account for the the idea that the mafia would like to win and winning fast > winning slow. If the mafia had screwed up, and were caught in non-large positions, SJG is exactly what they need to try and break the firewall. In an otherwise solid town game, I now have SEVERE misgivings about SJG. Justy wants SJG's logic to be true but is now voting SJG. Jordan is not voting and staying apart from things. They can't all be scum.
4) But now just votes SJG, which is intriguing because justy as mafia has just voted to kill one of his safe harbor points.
5) SF believes that a non-large is a definite possibility, but is taking a shot at happymeal.
6) HAppymeal definitely believes that large-large is unlikely, but is shooting at SF1
7) Harb and Jordan are not voting
8) I right now want to yell at everyone but I don't trust my own town game enough to know I am right. But every, EVERY, instinct I have says let's keep the chokepoint, because it is reasonably possible if not probably there is scum in the non-large area, and if there is and we systematically hunt through we either win or get to 4:1, and if I'm wrong we still don't lose and have 3:2.
9) Chuck seems to be looking at thing methodically. I can't fault his vote, it's in the right area.

SJG11/color] -- why are you SO SURE it is large-large and why do you want to break the one chokepoint that town currently has that they can at least ensure a vote on to prevent a 2:2 possible Mafia VC win. Because you while you temporize with "Well, if a good non-large scum read develops" you don't actually address the issue of allowing the mafia to skip from 4:2 to 2:2 without having to go through 3:2.


This was the second vote on sjg, for pretty good reasoning mind you, by Zoomzip. It is now 2 v 2 (2 for HM, 2 for sjg) by page 64. It takes about 7 more pages before vote switching to jordan happens, but an easy mislynch has now turned into a vote race between sjg and HM. There isn't a lot of things to panic about quite yet, but here comes the next big thing:

sjg11 wrote:
shadowfriend1 wrote:[*]http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=266
Happymeal's Zoomzip vote day 1:
-Poorly justified
-Suggested a lack of comprehension of the issues for which he was voting Zoomzip
-No suggested scum motive for any of Zoomzip's actions
-Didn't ask any questions or engage with ZZ before placing the vote

How is this any of this more likely to be Mafia than a townie making an iffy/dodgy vote on someone? Y'know, the type of votes that townies make all the time in these games.
[*]http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=271
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=273
Happymeal's opposition to the blue vote plan:
-You can see my deliberations with him in the above quote for yourself
-The blue vote plan is extremely beneficial to the town. Happymeal's opposition to the plan is in character with mafia play because it is a pro-town plan.
-His opposition was not limited to healthy skepticism, but a flat-out refusal to participate on Day 1.
* Note that he contradicted himself today on that stance, something you pointed out yourself.

I agree with the last point.

For the rest of it, how is suggesting a mechanical plan which you believe to be wrong a scumtell? It does happen all the time...

[*]http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=310
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=318
Happymeal's case on me today:
- After I respond to this case, as the above links show, he doesn't move his vote or even consider doing so, despite my detailed counters to all of his arguments. He doesn't even respond to them.
-Ultimately, he has no case left, but clings to his vote as he did with Zoomzip.
- This is the part you think could be from a townie as well: sure, but isn't it doing the mafia a mighty fine service?
-I summarize these points here:
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=321
In my experience, playing in an anti-town fashion does not equal Mafia even most of the time. Do you disagree with this assessment?

[*]http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=54045&sk=a&start=424
Sjg's post about happymeal's contradictory viewpoints:
- This is similar to the play I have observed from Happymeal throughout the day.
- His anti-blue vote stance dissolves randomly.
- His stance on large players dissolves randomly.[/list]

This stuff I clearly agree with.


Sjg, is once again, distancing himself from sf. He goes ahead and makes it clear what he agrees and disagrees with in SF's case, but isn't this particularly odd? Sjg hasn't characteristically done this sort of stuff over the course of the game. I don't believe he even responded to my case on sf in the start of the day (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Why is it that his plan of attack changes so suddenly? He hasn't been responding to cases in such a manner prior outside of Zoomzip's case by myself early, but that wasn't even in response to the case itself, it was all talk about the mechanics and the plan. He randomly starts interacting with cases when it comes to sf here, since they both have their vote on the same guy, it's pretty easy to see why sjg would want to make it seem like they're not partners trying to run a mislynch.

sjg11 wrote:
shadowfriend1 wrote:@Zoomzip & sjg or whoever else is around: do you think I'm tunneling on Happymeal? I'm starting to get the impression that, especially given the reaction of the town to my case on him, I'm voting for Happymeal because he's inconsistent and because I've talked to him so much. It's virtually impossible to resolve an inconsistency when he writes it off as being simply the way he is.

That's not to say that my concerns don't stand, but I feel like at the very least I've hit a brick wall.

Personally happymeal remains my best vote at this point due to the inconsistency surrounding the Large-Large stuff which I'm trying to engage on with him. So, I think there is plenty of merit to aspects of the happymeal case... but a few of the issues you've highlighted just don't seem very persuasive to me.


Here's another example of this distancing tactic. Sjg pretty much says the same thing to sf over and over despite wanting to have a lynch onto me. Now, he could just make it seem like he would come out alright if there was an HM mislynch, but I think there's more to that considering the frequency of it. It makes no sense to keep hammering the point that "you're wrong on some things" unless you have a plan regarding the specific player. Now it could be that sf is just a poor townie who Sjg wanted to eventually get a mislynch on, but I think there's more to it because of the massive amount of coincidences involving the two.

Harb wrote:Alright, general thoughts as extensively as I can.


2. justy falls into a pretty similar category actually, and isn't Large. Lots of mechanical discussion, not a lot of pursuit. Aside from the whole thing with me D1 that is, which he's tabled because he doesn't feel he can get anywhere with it. Not sure I get the backoff from it being an issue worth voting D1 to something that he "can't get anywhere with" today, but is no longer worth voting. That's prior to justy thinking we should focus on non Larges, so that's not a factor. [color=#0000FF]justy is where I'll vote for now. I still tend to agree that we're looking for at least one non-Large scum, and I'm not ready to vote sjg despite some issues today.



The next vote comes from harb who is targetting justy. Sjg targetted justy earlier in the day, but I don't think that has much to do with the case. I just think it's an interesting thing. Anyways, between this page and 64 or 65, it was mainly my own interactions with sjg. Feel free to look at them if you so choose.

Zoomzip wrote:
I have no idea where to go ATM. Jordan. I think? DL is tomorrow. God I hope I find some bandwidth to tease this out. Weird weekend.

Jordan, get in thread and give me the head of someone to kill better than you.


Anyways, the momentum is swing back to jordan. At this point we have:

Justy - 1
Happymeal - 2
Jordan - 2
Sjg - 1

Given that Sjg was a vote contender for a while now, it doesn't surprise me if the mafia were not in good thought given the circumstances surrounding the lynch. Which is what leads me to this:

shadowfriend1 wrote:[
Yeah, it should, and that's what I'm getting at. The thing is, I would honestly not have suspected any of the non-large players if not for this belief.

I'm going to do an read-through of my favorite of the three, though, because I agree this is where my lynch should be today.

Jordan

[list]
[*]Firstly, let's keep in mind that this is another new player:
Jordan767 wrote:I've got a total of 3 days under my belt. So yeah, I'm new.


[*]And he plays like it - his first 10 or so posts are extremely generic, for lack of a better word.




To start with is sf's vote. He eventually changes his vote to the right format so forgive me for not quoting the whole case, but I think this is the most important aspect of the sf switch the Jordan. He was completely aware that Jordan was a new player, but votes for him anyways. Remember his defense day 1 about DJA? This is the same exact scenario, there is huge momentum against a new player vs. his vote/idea of who is mafia at the time. This time, however, he doesn't defend the new player against the momentum, but instead he goes right into it adding to the momentum. The disparate responses can be allocated to the pressure that has been on sjg I believe. His partner was a possible lynch target and they knew it so instead of trying to ram the mislynch on Happymeal they wanted to do, they needed an easier target. This target was jordan.

Now, here's the next big event on day 2:

justy wrote:Happy, I noticed your questions and I'm going to answer them as soon as possible. Now I have little time and I want to restate my concerns because I don't think they have been realized or refuted.

IF it's medium/small scum team, we need to lynch medium/small today or at least stomp all medium and small N2.

This is based on two assumptions
- there's no small/medium mafia hiding amongst large claims (i.e. it's SJG Jordan team)
- they haven't used any of their hides yet.

The rationale behind this is that medium/small scum team have 5 votes. If we lynch large today, they NK me. That gives them vote majority (5 scum votes against 4 town votes). D3, they can decide who gets lynched because of their vote majority.

UDC made good point that town can stomp Sjg and Jordan N3. Well, if they have their hides, they avoid these stomps. That means day 4 starts in 3-2 situation, and scum can again decide who gets lynched.

In N4, town can stomp Jordan, who runs out of hides. That means D5 starts in 2-1 situation. Sjg can decide who gets lynched because of his vote majority. GAME OVER.

Only way for us to avoid this is either lynch medium-small today, or stomp every small or medium player N2. The only way. That's why I think we should lynch small or medium today.

Note, I do agree with Sjg's logic that large-large is possible. However, I don't think town has yet realized that if we don't lynch small or medium today or at least policy stomp N2, we're screwed.

My vote on Sjg is mostly because of this reasoning. Even if I'm wrong, game continues D3 if we lynch small.

I think Jordans UDC vote is really bad, and I could vote him as well. It's bad because after voting DJ D1, he didn't pursue his UDC read at all, even though he had long dialogue with UDC about reveals. At the end of D1, he also said that he found me scummy because I was lurking. Yet, he hasn't pursued this read at all today. Why? Because if it's medium/small team, they decided to keep me alive and get large mislynch today. Game over for town if they manage that and they aren't policy stomped already in N2.


Justy's post about the mechanics of the night and stomping small/medium players. Sf saw possible momentum on sjg and lack of momentum on Happymeal, but HM was still a possibility. This post, however, shook up the mafia more than they could have ever expected. Mechanic discussion basically said "the possibility of small team or M/S team is the highest" which gave them more motivation to lynch from smalls. 1/2 of the small players were pretty much cleared at this point (as mentioned by sjg later on). Now not just sf needed to act, but sjg as well. Here's where sjg switches his vote to jordan on the next page:

sjg11 wrote:Jordan

Gambling on a Large today is no longer worth it in my view.

I'm going for Jordan over justy because justy seems less interested in self-preservation than Jordan is. Thus, justy's play aligns less with what I'd expect of Mafia in the day even though I do think that Jordan's position is a reasonable one for a townie to hold, or certainly not a ridiculous position for a Mafia to hold.


Sjg pretty much makes a 180 on his perspective and votes jordan. The development to this point was weak, but I believe the pressure coming from both the lack of possibility of it being a justy lynch and the lack of momentum on an HM lynch forced both mafia members to try to force a Jordan lynch. This, to me, makes the most sense. I don't think Jordan's partner jumps on him on this point either for those voting Jordan today. Sjg had little reason to force more momentum onto jordan considering Jordan was leading at the time unless his partner had already jumped the gun.

Zoomzip wrote:Let's make this interesting:

SJG11


Now, here's ZZ's vote onto sjg. This is pretty much cementing the Sjg vs. Jordan vote. The momentum that was once on Jordan has now tipped back onto sjg unexpectedly. How do Sf and Sjg react?

shadowfriend1 wrote:
Zoomzip wrote:Let's make this interesting:

SJG11


Jordan

I really wouldn't mind killing sjg today. I don't have a lot of time to build a case on him, but I feel like it might be a sjg-Jordan team. They both strongly suggested that we should be fine with lynching larges today, a behaviour contrasted by also non-large Justy who is totally chill about dying for the good of the town. There is a very large scum motive for sjg and Jordan to hold this stance, because we see that the town did come reasonably close to lynching a large like Happymeal today.
If they are a small-med team, they sure as hell would have needed to oppose the plan of killing non-larges or else they would have lost, guaranteed.

Town: are we stomping on the other little ones tonight? I suspect they will use their hides if they are evil, so we'd probably just kill townies that way.


Sf basically stated he did not mind voting either sjg or Jordan. To me, this comes oddly from a guy who was willing to vote Happymeal the entire day prior to his vote switch to Jordan. However, I think it's important to note here that he claims that the town was close to lynching a large.
However, the votes on me were only ever done by two people. Sf and sjg. If Sjg was the only other vote on me, why would he claim it's the town doing it. He states in this post he believes sjg is the likely partner of jordan, but then immediately claims the town wanted to lynch me at the same time. How is this sort of perspective possible. I think there are two really good explanations here.

The first explanation is that he wanted to have a mislynch on Jordan and then say the next day "I need to review my stance on sjg now" which would lead to him having no commitment on the sjg lynch the next day. The second explanation is that he was not paying attention to his own vote during this period. If anything, a town member pays extreme attention to those who are voting for their person, but this looks yet again like a mafia not caring (like I mentioned earlier in another case against sf). I also think that this statement looks awfully like insurance. "If I cannot mislynch jordan over scum partner sjg today, I can mislynch jordan tomorrow".

After this, there isn't much. We end up lynching sjg and are pretty happy with the results.
It's true I'm nervous, but why do you think I'm mad?
User avatar
Happymeal
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 14:08
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Happymeal » 11 Nov 2016, 20:12

For those voting jordan today

I really need you guys to explain to me something.

Why does sjg vote jordan and continue the momentum when he does?

Why does sjg help create a sjg vs. jordan vote when he does especially when his stance on larges were so cemented?

Why does the weaker of the two scum help cement sjg's death at the end instead of just not voting?

None of this makes sense to me right now. With a sjg + Jordan team, they had way more options than voting one another on day 2. Jordan isn't a particularly experienced player, but sjg had enough time to tell him what actions he should take over the course of the game. Why does sjg instruct him to kill sjg? I don't see how any of this can realistically occur unless you believe sjg is not good at the game or he didn't possess time to instruct jordan. Neither of those conditions seemed to have been met this game. I don't comprehend how Jordan is really your best vote today.
It's true I'm nervous, but why do you think I'm mad?
User avatar
Happymeal
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 14:08
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Zoomzip » 11 Nov 2016, 20:16

@HM: These are good questions. I have my answers. Hope to get them in thread when I have some time
Kittens and rainbows. Forever. Wear your makeup like a man.

One of the moderators of the Mafia Form.
User avatar
Zoomzip
 
Posts: 6603
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 05:29
Location: NoVa and The District
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (921)
All-game rating: (919)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby shadowface » 11 Nov 2016, 20:31

Happymeal wrote:For those voting jordan today

I really need you guys to explain to me something.

Why does sjg vote jordan and continue the momentum when he does?

I'm pretty sure that's called bandwagoning. Also, very importantly, in this case it was scum v. scum, so either he was going to get lynched or his buddy was. This way he's attempting to make his buddy look more like town.
Happymeal wrote:Why does sjg help create a sjg vs. jordan vote when he does especially when his stance on larges were so cemented?

His stance on larges wasn't going anywhere. The only people who really wanted to lynch larges were, conveniently, jordan and sjg. If you don't have control of the town as scum, you've got to eventually get with it. If they don't, they draw a lot of negative attention.
Happymeal wrote:Why does the weaker of the two scum help cement sjg's death at the end instead of just not voting?

Town cred! What on earth would not voting accomplish, aside from standing out like a scummy thumb? (once again, I take pride in my awful metaphors)
Happymeal wrote:None of this makes sense to me right now. With a sjg + Jordan team, they had way more options than voting one another on day 2.

And they tried. But the town wanted them, so they had to back off.

Happymeal, I think you conceptualize the scum as being much more honest and principled than they actually are. Scum just want to blend in, and doing any of the actions that you think they would have above would only have made them or their buddy stand out as scummy. Scum specifically behave to avoid doing that during the day, prioritized usually above everything else, even busing their buddies or dying.
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1
Proud bearer of the Angle of Unnecessary Overshoot
Previously cursed by the Talisman of Greater Scumminess :twisted:, now an innocent, reformed townsperson
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 5524
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Location: Toronto
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (892)
All-game rating: (892)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Happymeal » 11 Nov 2016, 20:51

shadowfriend1 wrote:
Happymeal wrote:Why does the weaker of the two scum help cement sjg's death at the end instead of just not voting?

Town cred! What on earth would not voting accomplish, aside from standing out like a scummy thumb? (once again, I take pride in my awful metaphors)


No, that's not my point here. I think you need to pay more attention to the players and how they do things. This entire game Jordan has been borderline afk and wasting his time doing nothing essentially. However, at the most important moment for him as scum, his actions are decisive and he is here to do something. Why does his action change at this very moment? Why does he, as a player, change at the moment that he could have helped clear his scum partner by just doing nothing, like he's been the entire game. At the most important moment, he does something and essentially loses the game for his team. I'm not buying that. A scum who basically does nothing the entire game suddenly decisively takes an action that pretty much forces his scum partner to die? How does this happen? How do you really believe that occurred?

shadowfriend1 wrote:
Happymeal wrote:Why does sjg vote jordan and continue the momentum when he does?

I'm pretty sure that's called bandwagoning. Also, very importantly, in this case it was scum v. scum, so either he was going to get lynched or his buddy was. This way he's attempting to make his buddy look more like town.


Bandwagoning is when a player, regardless of alignment, votes another player for the same reasons someone else did or because someone else did it. For ex. a bandwagon would be like "Hey, Happymeal is right, I'm voting sf now. Leaving their vote and then not saying much else". This was not really a bandwagon, sjg, as a scum, had good reason to change his vote, but the momentum on sjg had not yet started. He had a stance on large team that everyone knows yet he changes his vote to someone whose size contradicts his entire stance. On top of that, it's his scum partner who had already possesses a significant portion of the votes on him. I need you to pay attention to the scenario. Scum team sjg + Jordan had very minimal reason to worry at the time. Sjg could have just as easily tried shifting the momentum to UDC and he had that possibility. It's not like UDC was a perfect player for the longest time and still had some kinks to iron out leading up to the scenario. They had more options than forcing this, yet they did it anyways.

shadowfriend1 wrote:
Happymeal wrote:None of this makes sense to me right now. With a sjg + Jordan team, they had way more options than voting one another on day 2.

And they tried. But the town wanted them, so they had to back off.


What? They tried? What did they try? Sjg voted one time for Happymeal. Jordan votes for UDC. How does this make any sense? The two scum players decided to basically vote and keep their votes on players who were gaining no momentum what so ever. It's really weird how you believe this. The town didn't really want them at the time. About 3 town members had their votes on Jordan at the time. 1 on sf, 1 on justy, 1 on sjg. This is not decisively sjg vs. jordan at the time yet sjg somehow thinks that jordan is the best vote to make. He had at least 3 other options (Justy did his big post bomb on page 71 I think so 2 really) that he could have pursued. Instead, he pretty much forces the votes to be on him vs. jordan and then at the very last moment, he decides that instead of using Jordan's general afk attitude to let him live and let jordan die that jordan should instead kill him? This set of circumstances doesn't make that much sense to me. The right play is jordan doesn't change his vote and sjg claims that Jordan just played the same way he usually does the next day, but they didn't do that.

shadowfriend1 wrote:Happymeal, I think you conceptualize the scum as being much more honest and principled than they actually are. Scum just want to blend in, and doing any of the actions that you think they would have above would only have made them or their buddy stand out as scummy. Scum specifically behave to avoid doing that during the day, prioritized usually above everything else, even busing their buddies or dying.


Like I said before, I don't think busing really occurs as often as you think it does. You got bussed as scum one time and now you apply it to every scenario? I'll say one thing, it's pretty rare for me to see scum bus one another. I play as town a lot because it's just the card I draw, but scum really only bus when things go horribly wrong. Things were not horribly wrong at the time which is why I find it weird especially with an experienced player like sjg who I think could take advantage of the scenario.
It's true I'm nervous, but why do you think I'm mad?
User avatar
Happymeal
 
Posts: 1900
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 14:08
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Bigger, Medium, Smaller Mafia Day 3

Postby Harb » 11 Nov 2016, 20:53

Happymeal wrote:@everyone

LYNCHING JORDAN IS THE WRONG PLAY. STOMPING HIM IS THE RIGHT ONE.


Recognize this, justy, if jordan is lynched today, is doomed to stomp someone large assuming jordan is town and the game continues. Tonight, Justy still has a chance to stomp jordan if we wait to stomp him. If you lynch jordan today, justy is dead tonight. I highly recommend you stomp him instead.


I don't think this is correct. Sorry, but I don't. I think the lack NK points pretty strongly to a non-Large scum. So if we lynch Jordan and he's town, my strong town feelings to justy are pretty weakened. I'm not at all upset about him getting stomped in the night when he visits a Large. There's actually HUGE upside to that. It allows us to continue the daisy chain that potentially catches size-liars. It allows justy to do a spot check on someone's size. If he visits somebody and survives, we've got an instant dipole and a lock for town win (we lynch justy, and if he's town we stomp who he claimed to visit)

Finally, if both Jordan and justy are town, and we kill them over this Day and Night cycle... We're still 4/1, all Large meaning no Night Kill. That's THREE mislynches before we lose. I'm perfectly fine accelerating to that situation rather than leaving a potentially scum Small with three votes in the world.
---------
I have the honor to be your obedient servant,

A. Harb
User avatar
Harb
 
Posts: 4623
Joined: 03 May 2012, 15:08
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (971)
All-game rating: (971)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests