MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Forum rules
This is an area for forum games. Please note that to support mafia games players cannot edit their own posts in this forum. Off Topic threads will be relocated or deleted. Issues taking place in forum games should be dealt with by respective game GMs and escalated to the moderators only if absolutely necessary.
This is an area for forum games. Please note that to support mafia games players cannot edit their own posts in this forum. Off Topic threads will be relocated or deleted. Issues taking place in forum games should be dealt with by respective game GMs and escalated to the moderators only if absolutely necessary.
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Is anyone else weirded out by Balki's complete lack of pressure to follow through on hammering worcej?
- Chaqa
- Bronze Donator
- Posts: 14167
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:33 pm
- Location: Allentown, PA, USA
- Contact:
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
So I guess we aren't hammering worcej.
Big sadge.
Big sadge.
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Not any more than I am about his original claim.
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
God damn I find your antics to be hilarious sometimes lol
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
I always feel bad for people that hold onto rejection for years and years. There’s lots of fish in the sea, ghug
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Sorry I was inactive during the night. I'm coming back soon.
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:33 am
- Contact:
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
BunnyGo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:46 amWhat was exciting for you?KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:23 pm
I am glad I was around for period ending this time, that was more exciting!
But I have to go back to work, so I have now contributed my hypothesis on Worcej, plus I believe we did a binding vote and these are the results? Makes my decision easy, especially since I will likely miss end of day
##VOTE worcej
PS: While no-one else responded to my long Worcej thread, ghug has been consistently defending them and now wants to void the results of the binding vote. Suspicious.
What do you do for work?
Day doesn't end for almost 48 hours...we have time.
I'm very happy to talk about worcej and ghug. Could you elaborate on what's suspicious about ghug? If one ends up being confirmed town, does that tell you something about the other? What if one ends up being confirmed scum?
Exciting because I got to see the end of a vote in real time.
I'm in tech – have been everything form a developer to an exec.
Sure re time, but I'll most likely be working when the day ends.
Re worcej, I already posted a long thread summarizing the history of our interactions and outlining why I suspect them. The one where worcej said all I did was re-post previous posts. (But of course they would say that if they are Mafia.) In one of my posts I outlined my reasoning. Boils down to either "an experienced player completely mis-reading the situation" which I find hard to believe or "something else going on here". The rest of the posts are for context. But as I also said in that post, I am happy for someone to counter why my reasoning is flawed.
But I don't think that matters anymore. We did a binding vote last night, didn't we? For better or for worse, the worcej vote won (irrespective of my hypothesis being right, and others had other suspicions around them too). On one hand, I agree with the reasoning around the "pool of elimination" that was discussed last night. On the other hand, as I understood it, we essentially told our Gambler – if there is one – to place a bet on the winning vote, being worcej. So if we now fail to do that, we have screwed our Gambler over, no? That seems like a bad outcome to me.
Of course we don't know for 100%. It's a guess. Like any other vote would be a guess. But between a guess that is guaranteed to screw our Gambler over – if there is one – and just-a-guess, I find the former significantly more appealing.
Further, after we did the binding vote, the Mafia crew did not decide to kill the person who was voted. Also suspicious.
Re ghug, they were against the idea of the binding vote from the start as far as I can tell (or at least, kept poking holes in it and "closing doors instead of opening them" as someone said). Oh, I just looked it up – the someone was Hamilton Brian – whom we now established as a Vanilla Townperson in postmortem. And now that the binding vote has happened, ghug posted essentially trying to say "let's call it off". I stand by this combination of actions being quite suspicious!
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:33 am
- Contact:
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Err typo – I find the latter significantly more appealing, of course! Sticking with the binding vote from last night, that is.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:25 amOf course we don't know for 100%. It's a guess. Like any other vote would be a guess. But between a guess that is guaranteed to screw our Gambler over – if there is one – and just-a-guess, I find the former significantly more appealing.
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Mmm yeah this guy is town.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:25 amBunnyGo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:46 amWhat was exciting for you?KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:23 pm
I am glad I was around for period ending this time, that was more exciting!
But I have to go back to work, so I have now contributed my hypothesis on Worcej, plus I believe we did a binding vote and these are the results? Makes my decision easy, especially since I will likely miss end of day
##VOTE worcej
PS: While no-one else responded to my long Worcej thread, ghug has been consistently defending them and now wants to void the results of the binding vote. Suspicious.
What do you do for work?
Day doesn't end for almost 48 hours...we have time.
I'm very happy to talk about worcej and ghug. Could you elaborate on what's suspicious about ghug? If one ends up being confirmed town, does that tell you something about the other? What if one ends up being confirmed scum?
Exciting because I got to see the end of a vote in real time.
I'm in tech – have been everything form a developer to an exec.
Sure re time, but I'll most likely be working when the day ends.
Re worcej, I already posted a long thread summarizing the history of our interactions and outlining why I suspect them. The one where worcej said all I did was re-post previous posts. (But of course they would say that if they are Mafia.) In one of my posts I outlined my reasoning. Boils down to either "an experienced player completely mis-reading the situation" which I find hard to believe or "something else going on here". The rest of the posts are for context. But as I also said in that post, I am happy for someone to counter why my reasoning is flawed.
But I don't think that matters anymore. We did a binding vote last night, didn't we? For better or for worse, the worcej vote won (irrespective of my hypothesis being right, and others had other suspicions around them too). On one hand, I agree with the reasoning around the "pool of elimination" that was discussed last night. On the other hand, as I understood it, we essentially told our Gambler – if there is one – to place a bet on the winning vote, being worcej. So if we now fail to do that, we have screwed our Gambler over, no? That seems like a bad outcome to me.
Of course we don't know for 100%. It's a guess. Like any other vote would be a guess. But between a guess that is guaranteed to screw our Gambler over – if there is one – and just-a-guess, I find the former significantly more appealing.
Further, after we did the binding vote, the Mafia crew did not decide to kill the person who was voted. Also suspicious.
Re ghug, they were against the idea of the binding vote from the start as far as I can tell (or at least, kept poking holes in it and "closing doors instead of opening them" as someone said). Oh, I just looked it up – the someone was Hamilton Brian – whom we now established as a Vanilla Townperson in postmortem. And now that the binding vote has happened, ghug posted essentially trying to say "let's call it off". I stand by this combination of actions being quite suspicious!
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:33 am
- Contact:
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
Of, to answer the rest of your questions Bunny so I don't get voted on for missing one again :)
If one ends up being confirmed town, does that tell you something about the other?
- Hmm, not really. Perhaps what we call a weak signal in data science. But causality vs correlation is questionable.
What if one ends up being confirmed scum?
- If we do the binding vote as we discussed last night and worcej is Mafia (I don't like calling folks scum), I would feel a very strong suspicion that so is ghug due to the reasoning outlined above
- If we somehow magically establish that ghug is Mafia, it would be a weaker inference that in the case of worcej being Mafia, but a stronger inference vs the Town scenarios
If one ends up being confirmed town, does that tell you something about the other?
- Hmm, not really. Perhaps what we call a weak signal in data science. But causality vs correlation is questionable.
What if one ends up being confirmed scum?
- If we do the binding vote as we discussed last night and worcej is Mafia (I don't like calling folks scum), I would feel a very strong suspicion that so is ghug due to the reasoning outlined above
- If we somehow magically establish that ghug is Mafia, it would be a weaker inference that in the case of worcej being Mafia, but a stronger inference vs the Town scenarios
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:33 am
- Contact:
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
This game should have another role Bookmaker, where everyone gets 100 chips and you can privately submit bets on who you currently think is Mafia until you are out. At the end, correct guesses pay out at the-earlier-the-phase-the-higher-the-returns and the winner is announced.
With zero effect on the outcome of the actual game :)
With zero effect on the outcome of the actual game :)
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
We had to ban the betting of pizzas on alignments.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:00 amThis game should have another role Bookmaker, where everyone gets 100 chips and you can privately submit bets on who you currently think is Mafia until you are out. At the end, correct guesses pay out at the-earlier-the-phase-the-higher-the-returns and the winner is announced.
With zero effect on the outcome of the actual game :)
-
- Posts: 854
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:33 am
- Contact:
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
One last post before I go:
While I am currently strongly in favor of following through on the binding vote (due to above reasoning), I did not understand from the posts last night the intention behind hammering. Can someone please explain that to me?
The reason I ask is – I thought you folks said that Townies gather info from interactions? Would it not make sense to just lock the votes end but still let the day run out?
Or is the worry that the voted-on person will use Jedi Mind Trick or Silence of The Lambs' style psychology jiu-jitsu to convince the group to move off the vote? "Lock it in"?
While I am currently strongly in favor of following through on the binding vote (due to above reasoning), I did not understand from the posts last night the intention behind hammering. Can someone please explain that to me?
The reason I ask is – I thought you folks said that Townies gather info from interactions? Would it not make sense to just lock the votes end but still let the day run out?
Or is the worry that the voted-on person will use Jedi Mind Trick or Silence of The Lambs' style psychology jiu-jitsu to convince the group to move off the vote? "Lock it in"?
Re: MAFIA 77: RETURN TO THE WEST [GAME THREAD] - [HIDDEN]
In practice, conversation dies once we've unanimously decided on a target, and it's often slow to get moving again after the kill if we let it go too long.KoalaAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:10 amOne last post before I go:
While I am currently strongly in favor of following through on the binding vote (due to above reasoning), I did not understand from the posts last night the intention behind hammering. Can someone please explain that to me?
The reason I ask is – I thought you folks said that Townies gather info from interactions? Would it not make sense to just lock the votes end but still let the day run out?
Or is the worry that the voted-on person will use Jedi Mind Trick or Silence of The Lambs' style psychology jiu-jitsu to convince the group to move off the vote? "Lock it in"?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Aristocrat, Spartaculous, Xstxbxn