quote:

---

Originally posted by WCFmo:
PD - "What you *should* have done, and in fact what I told you to do before I died, was go back over my suspicions once you knew I was being honest and reassess them."

"yet while I had ALL the mafia on my suspect list in R1..."

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut (I'm not tyring to insult you, but you had like eight people you were suspicious of). Plus with 7/8 people you were suspicous of, it's more than likely going to have at least one or two mafia in it.

---

AFA being a blind squirrel goes--my point is not to claim any great skill--I openly admit that I am as wrong as anyone else can be. The difference is I don't act with conviction unsuited to my success rate. If you were right 1% of the time, it would be pretty foolish to say you were 100% sure so-and-so was mafia, wouldn't it? Would it not therefore, be appropriate to be circumspect? Approach your own suspicions with a healthy dose of skepticism?

Wouldn't being circumspect increase your chances of detecting "false positives" and thereby improve your success rate at finding mafia?

Your grasp of the stats seems incomplete. Sure, with a suspect list of 8 players in R1, a cit is quite likely to have a mafia in the list. In fact his chances of having some mafia in a list of 8 is about 92%--it would be hard NOT to have mafia in such a list.

But what are the chances of having all three? About 12.5%--about 1 in 8. Having all 3 mafia in such a list then is a reasonably noteworthy event. I don't think it was all luck--I didn't suspect Bernek, MM, and you by rolling dice. As I recall OGB was my die roll.

Anyway, the point is, here was an instance of a confirmed cit who had some decent leads, and they were just dumped overboard with his corpse. It's always useful to take the intersection of the suspicions of the dead and see if there are commonalities--in a way, the dead are the only people you know you can trust. And when I suggested that the players align themselves with people they knew they could trust (i.e. Gawain & MW) so as to play havoc with the mafia's ability to manipulate the citizenry, MM complained. As well he should, being mafia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Your grasp of the stats seems incomplete. Sure, with a suspect list of 8 players in R1, a cit is quite likely to have a mafia in the list. In fact his chances of having some mafia in a list of 8 is about 92%--it would be hard NOT to have mafia in such a list.

But what are the chances of having all three? About 12.5%--about 1 in 8.

...

...

MW had good leads and so did I, and they should have counted for something once they were revealed to be honest.[/B]

---

The point I was making is that (trying to look back as a cit), how can a person look back at your list to determine anything? There were too many people on it, realistically, even if you had all three mafia members in your suspect list there were five others who weren't (Gawain was on your suspect list, so I will give you credit that once he dropped off you had a 3/7 chance).

Also, I think once someone says "X suspected Y" so we need to lynch them, that's a perfect setup for the mafia. Because, more than likely you are going to be killing a cit. While I applaud your pragmatism, it would be demoralizing after examining your list and choosing a person, they turned out to be a cit. Which, if the mafia are in that group, will try to exploit.

Of course the mafia are going to try to exploit every possible move in the game, and that's no reason to totally give up on something just b/c the mafia may try to exploit it. I'm not saying that people shouldn't carefully consider their options, but the reality of the situation is that

1) You're more likely to kill a cit with that big of a suspect list,
2) If you have a small suspect list (1 to 3 at max) it's more advantageous to the mafia to choose people with non-mafia suspects in order to double bluff them.
Solution - don't play . I kid, I don't think there is a right answer, but I don't think every play needs to be super thought out...sometimes the mafia are doing exactly what you think they are. Didn't you convince people to go after the mafia leader's top suspect last round? Ha. Sometimes thinking about bluffs and double bluffs, etc. can get you into trouble especially for people with such eloquent tongues.

And your final presumption - that you had good leads and they should have been examined is only good in hindsight. If you had terrible leads and they were examined, then going through your list would have cost the town even worse.

You and AGM seem to have drastically different play styles, which may work some games and other games no. He seems like to focus one suspect at a time (even if that time frame is very short), whereas you fire all your guns at once suspecting about a dozen people. Both methods (heck all methods) are susceptible to mafia treachery (get it?).

One thing I would like to note, either people don't reread the thread when they say they are or people just have fickle memory - case in point, OGB telling me that I had switched my vote twice, me telling him that he had done the same thing (twice). He tells me that he had a suspect list, well so did I.

Finally, I wasn't trying to do a statistical analysis, but my point was yeah you had all three mafia members on your suspect list - a blind squirrel can find a nut, i.e. the chances of that happening are not that good (you provided 12% or so I'm not gonna check the figures).

Short version - sometimes brash behavior can be good, sometimes careful consideration can lead to manipulation - neither are good strategies on their own.

No offense but I think your take on my playstyle (and AGM's) is limited by the number of games you've played. It's actually not typical for me to have such a large suspect list--although in R1 it doesn't take much to get on people's suspect lists so they tend to be longer in the early game.

You appear to think I'm being unduly hard on AGM, and therefore I need to be "taken down a notch". I assure you, the opinion I rendered earlier is pretty much consistent with the entire zombie club--I didn't come to this appraisal in a vacuum.

AFA Gawain goes, yes I was one of the first to suspect him. I did not vote for him, however, you might want to thank the players who created enough of a pile for him to reveal.

AFA differences in playstyles go, and when they are applicable--I think my playstyle is a little more nuanced than how you've characterized it. I recognize there are times to be bold, loud, and convicted--I also recognize that this is not all the time.

@AGM: You're welcome. Looking forward to WW.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
A good lead is a good lead, whether or not it is in hindsight, WCFmo.

The problem is you don't know if it's a good lead until later, hence the problem. What came first the chicken or the egg? etc..

No offense but I think your take on my playstyle (and AGM's) is limited by the number of games you've played. It's actually not typical for me to have such a large suspect list--although in R1 it doesn't take much to get on people's suspect lists so they tend to be longer in the early game.

Unlike Zak, I don't have time to read through all the other mafia threads, I read a few pages worth of the last thread. You would be right, I don't have a high enough sample size, but I never say that I was basing it on anything other than this game.

You appear to think I'm being unduly hard on AGM, and therefore I need to be "taken down a notch". I assure you, the opinion I rendered earlier is pretty much consistent with the entire zombie club--I didn't come to this appraisal in a vacuum.

I do feel like people are being hard on him, but I'm not trying to take you down a notch. I'm really just trying to say that the mafia won b/c people made mistakes (i.e. it's not just AGM's fault the town lost - it's all your fault ), it's not AGM's fault that zakman imploded (I still am a little peeved that no one has mention the fact he said some choice things about me when he was gonna do the same thing as me), was not his fault that Bugger imploded, etc. Also, I'm not sure who it was, but I believe it was you (paraphrasing) "Let AGM live for a couple of rounds so we can look at his voting pattern." (could have been Bugger).

AFA Gawain goes, yes I was one of the first to suspect him. I did not vote for him, however, you might want to thank the players who created enough of a pile for him to reveal.

Who'd you vote for again?

AFA differences in playstyles go, and when they are applicable--I think my playstyle is a little more nuanced than how you've characterized it. I recognize there are times to be bold, loud, and convicted--I also recognize that this is not all the time.

Obviously a characterization isn't going to hold true 100% of the time, if your play is a little more nuanced, than the characterization is mostly correct and that's all the best you can hope for.

@AGM: You're welcome. Looking forward to WW.

---

Again, not trying to argue with you PD, I'm not even sure I like AGM's game that much, I'm a pretty decent Devil's Advocate (though I'm not sure when it comes to Mafia, as I've only played one game).

quote:

---

Originally posted by WCFmo: I do feel like people are being hard on him, but I'm not trying to take you down a notch. I'm really just trying to say that the mafia won b/c people made mistakes (i.e. it's not just AGM's fault the town lost - it's all your fault ), it's not AGM's fault that zakman imploded (I still am a little peeved that no one has mention the fact he said some choice things about me when he was gonna do the same thing as me), was not his fault that Bugger imploded, etc. Also, I'm not sure who it was, but I believe it was you (paraphrasing) "Let AGM live for a couple of rounds so we can look at his voting pattern." (could have been Bugger).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain:

This, I take issue with. Here is why: Given the INTENSE level of frustration that AGM's play style has generated over the course of not only this game, but several previous incarnations, I think that the VERY carefully selected words that PD and I had for him after the fiasco that was this last session were generous and fair, to say the least. And I will say, to AGM's credit, that he accepted what we had to say quite gracefully, because I think he understood that what we said, needed to be said, and could have been framed in a much less digestible manner with at least some degree of justification.

---

Fair enough, I wasn't here for those games, but I've been reading the current thread since I died (this game) and I just wanted to stick up for the guy since no one else was.

I would like to point out that sometimes it's hard to be level headed when everyone is picking on you. IMHO (which like I say, based on limited information) just kept the vicious cycle going.

Either way, good game everyone.

I die-rolled an early vote for OGB, with the intention of changing it later.

After Bernek backpedalled and went drastically OOC I put in my vote for him.

Then Gawain revealed and the pile came off of him began to move on to me. Seeing the pile going for me, I bargained that I would vote only with the 2 known cits and vote myself out in R3. Thus I could give the cits 2 more rounds of my observations on the guarantee that I would be revealed one way or the other in the meantime. Gawain voted Zak, so I voted Zak.

AGM, until recently voting for the seer, couldn't live with this idea and switched his vote to me. It became clear in my interactions with him that he was tunneled, and would continue to find reasons to suspect me and create a pointless distraction for the cits. In an effort to nip that in the bud, I self-voted, thus taking away AGM's obsession and hopefully preventing it from distracting the cits in the following rounds. Obviously I didn't "suspect" myself.

My top suspect was Bernek, and that's why he got my vote and kept it until Gawain revealed. Though (to his credit) he did a good job of making me doubt myself when he reverted back to character.

Per your other query, it was Bugger's suggestion that neither he nor AGM should make it to the endgame but that AGM should be kept in. I would not have agreed had I been alive at the time that was said--the either/or scenario simply gave the mafia an opportunity. No surprise that Bernek and MM planned to make AGM & Bugger the last two lynches of the game and secure the endgame.

"Obviously a characterization isn't going to hold true 100% of the time, if your play is a little more nuanced, than the characterization is mostly correct and that's all the best you can hope for."

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. By "a little" more nuanced, I meant "heavily" nuanced. I guess you could say my comment was also a little more nuanced than you realized.

"I just wanted to stick up for the guy since no one else was."

Consider that there may be a reason nobody else was sticking up for him.

There's no need for us to argue in circles. I think there have been some substantial weaknesses in AGM's play that have made him a serious liability. He very graciously accepted my opinion, whether or not he agrees with it remains to be seen. That there are weaknesses in the playstyle of myself and others is not really in dispute--and not exculpatory with regard to AGM's playstyle... two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Remember--this wasn't about AGM being wrong, it was about acting with conviction unwarranted by his success rate, it was about giving the mafia the information they need to manipulate the cits. People blurting out ill-founded suspicions are exceptionally helpful to the mafia--and the more doggedly they stick with them the better.

Your mafia buddies weren't just playing for the current round, but they were planning for future rounds--who will we push toward the gallows in R3, in R4, in R5... etc. This kind of planning is facilitated by the information from the cits. That they kept AGM alive because they were sure they could lynch him later says something about his playstyle.

I think we understand each other (at least to some degree).

I did understand what MM & Bernek were doing though, mafia use whatever they can to gain an advantage, and when cits are fighting between each other it gives them an advantage.

AFA convincing rhetoric--one thing I've learned is that logic convinces people less than conviction. There are always some analytical folks in the crowd who respond well to logic, but there are typically many who instead pick up on the emotion--this is one of the dangers of conviction, especially here. When you speak with conviction, people who might not necessarily think your argument is very strong might be convinced because YOU'RE convinced. This is where I point out that we all have a fairly typical track record, i.e. usually wrong. If we're usually wrong, we probably shouldn't be so convinced when we are making a case, or at least maintain a healthy sense of self doubt so we can be more circumspect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:

AFA convincing rhetoric--one thing I've learned is that logic convinces people less than conviction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
@WCFmo - The most important takeaway I have learned from this game is that it is played a certain way, not the most logical way. I agreed with PD and Gawain because, in the context of this website, their arguments are correct. However, I understand exactly where you are coming from, and should you ever venture to play mafia in realms other than MOTL, you will find other people who agree with you as well. At the end of the day, however, there is no overarching "best" way to play mafia - the true "best" way is directly related to the community and playstyle of a specific group of mafia players.

As a contained example, let's look at Gawain and PD's political comparison - e.g., because my posts are very aggressive and use persuasive rhetoric, they are distracting smokescreens and people tend to follow them (if that is not a correct paraphrase, I apologize, but for the purposes of this post, the text of the argument is largely irrelevant). In a vacuum or on other sites, I would argue "who's the more fool: the fool, or the fool who follows him?" I would contend that those who are suckered in to my supposedly fear-inducing oratory abilities are just as responsible as I am for the loss (which, according to PD/Gawain makes them imbeciles responsible for the loss of some sort). I would say that people should learn to take my accusations with a grain of salt, while still considering the strategic content they contain. This mindset, however, is not the best way to approach the game. As a townsperson, it is my responsibility to make sure I am working in the best interests of this specific town at all times. I should not be serving some abstract concept of "protownness" or trying to optimize the game. Those goals are excessively lofty and will never be achieved, and whether they are preferable or not is a discussion that should be held outside of the game. Thus, instead of saying "my playstyle is better, the scumteam is comprised of X, Y, Z" and garbage dumping 20 reasons as to why that is true into the thread, I should step back and ask myself "How can I help this town catch scum?" Clearly, my aggressive "George W. Bush" playstyle is NOT going to help this town. If I want to play with that more aggressive style, I should go elsewhere and play with other towns that embrace it as the norm. While I'm here playing with MOTL, I should cater to its community and norms. This is what will catch scum, and that is what being a pro-town player is ultimately all about.

---

+1.

That was one of the few things I learned going from here, to mafiascum, back to here for mafia: My play, when I first joined mafiascum, was suboptimal for how they play over there. I was timid, and because votes are done differently, my analysis had to change. I had to play an entirely different type of game, and include a little bit of conviction. Granted, I rarely speak with conviction in my mafia here, but there, sometimes it's necessary to get a point across. I picked up on tells and what not over there, but when I came back here, realize that some of the darndest tells on mafiascum can't necessarily be used here. Again, it essentially comes down to game mechanics and nuances between different sites. If anybody wants me to go into depth, I can, on request, but it will be on the Game Discussion Thread MM made.