MAfIA 84 - A VERY TENDER THANKSGIVING GAME THREAD

[Chaqa]

@damo

So is your theory that the scumteam is Sweet, ND/Bona, and myself?

I think you're more likely to be correct about that if that's true.

Bona being scum gives much higher likelihood to you being scum. And nothing you've done this game leads me to move you out of "null".

And since rdr is correct that I can't vote Bona without a CC...

You're doing the classic mistake of "I think x is true, and if x is true, y is true, so we should assume y is true"

X is that bona is scum
Y is that Chaqa is scum

[Chaqa]

I'm not yet convinced as to whether Bona is Doctor or scum

[BunnyGo]

So is your theory that the scumteam is Sweet, ND/Bona, and myself?

I think you're more likely to be correct about that if that's true.

Bona being scum gives much higher likelihood to you being scum. And nothing you've done this game leads me to move you out of "null".

And since rdr is correct that I can't vote Bona without a CC...

You're doing the classic mistake of "I think x is true, and if x is true, y is true, so we should assume y is true"

X is that bona is scum
Y is that Chaqa is scum

did I mislogic too?!?

I think x is true

I think x being true increases the odds of y being true.

I cannot directly confirm x is true.

So I will indirectly measure y.

What's the problem?

[heartthrob24909]

heart was here and disappeared it seems...

Come back heart! There's drama!

Doing my best to do what looks like a LOT of catch-up rn

I appreciate that you only started posting and catching up once you were in the office...classy.

Learning from the best here

[heartthrob24909]

@Bozopedia: has Jamie ever crumbed or does he often crumb?

I feel like you all are over-reading that post

Jamie typically crumbs when he is a PR, but I think he is usually more direct when he has an informative scan. I am not convinced that Jamie did not just suspect Bonatogether was mafia without any N1 scan.

Yeah, this is how I read the post originally.

Bona claiming Doctor is the bit that makes me think Jamie *did* see something, but it's unclear to me what the truth of it all is yet.

Does the person who gets watched know that they were watched? For ease pretend Jamie did see Bona do something. What would give Bona the impression that he was seen doing whatever he was doing?

[BunnyGo]

Jamie typically crumbs when he is a PR, but I think he is usually more direct when he has an informative scan. I am not convinced that Jamie did not just suspect Bonatogether was mafia without any N1 scan.

Yeah, this is how I read the post originally.

Bona claiming Doctor is the bit that makes me think Jamie *did* see something, but it's unclear to me what the truth of it all is yet.

Does the person who gets watched know that they were watched? For ease pretend Jamie did see Bona do something. What would give Bona the impression that he was seen doing whatever he was doing?

Almost surely not, but I haven't checked with GM. This would allow them to use watching as a signal.

You can check with GM by typing:

##CALL GM does the person watched or tracked know they were the target of an action?

[BunnyGo]

Doing my best to do what looks like a LOT of catch-up rn

I appreciate that you only started posting and catching up once you were in the office...classy.

Learning from the best here

You hear that, everyone? I'm the best!

[Bonatogether]

I think you're more likely to be correct about that if that's true.

Bona being scum gives much higher likelihood to you being scum. And nothing you've done this game leads me to move you out of "null".

And since rdr is correct that I can't vote Bona without a CC...

You're doing the classic mistake of "I think x is true, and if x is true, y is true, so we should assume y is true"

X is that bona is scum
Y is that Chaqa is scum

did I mislogic too?!?

I think x is true

I think x being true increases the odds of y being true.

I cannot directly confirm x is true.

So I will indirectly measure y.

What's the problem?

affirming the consequent

[BunnyGo]

You're doing the classic mistake of "I think x is true, and if x is true, y is true, so we should assume y is true"

X is that bona is scum
Y is that Chaqa is scum

did I mislogic too?!?

I think x is true

I think x being true increases the odds of y being true.

I cannot directly confirm x is true.

So I will indirectly measure y.

What's the problem?

affirming the consequent

I'm not claiming chaqa flipping scum confirms bona is scum

[heartthrob24909]

day 1 vca

major wagon = 3 votes or more at once, plus whatever else i care to talk about

i wasn't around for early early game but it's ok

the first major wagon is NDtogether, with ghug, ND, and jamie. ghug is a hater, so nothing really to read into that. ND self-voted for unknown reasons, and jamie followed that up because apparently seriously self-voting early in d1 is like wacky. this wagon technically dissipates when ND subs out, but i feel like it's important to note that from my understanding of the thread, people were not big fans of ND. I don't think anyone scumread him per se at this point, but he's not one of the bubbly and friendly personalities that we know and love around here.

no kill gets 3 votes but it's irrelevant and just people babooning so idc. no one on this (temask, worcej, ND) meant to stay here, or was indeed actively subbing out.

i sub in, and immediately pick up 3 votes. only one of these is from the ND wagon, which suggests that, given the unseriousness of the wagon on ND, the votes were largely focused on myself. the votes are, in order, from sweet (who claims that his scumread of ND is the driving factor, despite never voting for him and only a mild setup), ghug (i believe an unserious vote), and macca (who claims to scumread ND on first read, but i'm now in that slot).

macca picked up two votes for her vote almost immediately from damo and from heartthrob for her justification of her vote on me. i believe at least heartthrob has changed his mind on this but at the time, this is what happened. macca drops her vote from me, supposedly in response to me appealing to famous former mafia player bob, but the timing on this looks like it's a response to vote pressure. she also changes her vote several times to unvote and then to no-kill. this sequence is important because it sets the ball rolling for macca's wagon, which temasak jumps on to make it major. jamie also expresses interest in the wagon at this point. macca never reappears after this until n1

chaqa votes for me initially as a #swingthesubs, but this read apparently later solidified. unclear when or why.

sweet and i argue for a while, because i disliked his explanation of voting for ND and not me, when it would seem that we're the same. some people disagreed with me on this but i am town and he was scum so i won.

temasek, worcej, and ghug all notice sweet's argument and take issue with different parts. temasek later votes macca (he is the only sweet voter to change votes), but ghug and worcej stay on until the end.

i briefly drop off from being a major wagon but return when will has this post, which is kind of crazy: https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=365631#p365631
have i ever played with this guy? (i think yes but i got killed d1). does this guy believe nd is a paragon of mafia playing? what is even going on in this post. also the quote "Unless any new information or counterclaims come out" is kind of crazy. no one has claimed anything, and there is no information. this is a nothing sentence, which, if taken at face value, would mean this man is totally ride or die on the vote he has found, based on "ND's antics." (side note: what is threat level control).

https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=365746#p365746
apparently not LOL. i do not understand this guy.

i think EoD really begins at T-0:45, when the vote is 3 macca/3 will/3 sweet/2 bona/5 votes either not placed or on minor wagons
macca voters: temasek, damo, heartthrob. these 3 either don't move, aren't active, or only flip when it's too late to change the outcome. zero momentum wagon.
will voters: bunny, rdr, sweet. primarily the anti-sweet counterwagon.
sweet voters: worcej, ghug, bona. all voting for sweet in response to sweet's voting justification footwork with me and ND. none of these votes move, despite being around relatively close to EoD.
bona voters: chaqa (inactive) and will (late to the party on voting me). this former lead wagon is in the final stages of disintegration.

by T-0:26, the vote is 4 macca/4 will/4 sweet/3 vanity wagons
macca voters: same plus will in desperate self-saving mode. this zombie wagon lumbers on
will voters: same plus ham. remains the 'not sweet' wagon.
sweet voters: same plus spirit. this is the only vote placed in between now and the previous interval that had a definite 'i scumread this person', which looks good for spirit. editors note: lol he died. this might be why.

bozo and jamie get off vanity wagons for sweet. bozo has only engaged with sweet once before in the whole day (admittedly not a high poster), and says his reason is not very strong. however he never moves his vote even as sweet becomes a giant wagon. jamie is also not a big sweet fan in his vote, and also, like bozo never really engages sweet throughout the day in any determinative manner

two macca voters also flip onto sweet but their votes weren't relevant (will and damo) so they don't count.

i think because sweet was trying to make it him vs will, will looks tentatively better. i'm not sure who else he could have chosen though - macca's wagon was effectively dead, as was mine. the only other wagon with momentum in the final minutes before eod was will, partially because will was doing his whole freakout routine. sweet was also trying to attack will directly for that, quoting a post where will plans out possibilities for sweet getting flipped and how he dies. i think on balance this makes will look somewhat worse, but in a meta planning way. i'm unfamiliar with how he plays so idrk.

bozo and jamie both get towncredit for being the important 'kill sweet' votes. taking a look at your teammate tied with two other people (even if one of macca/will is mafia) and saying 'yeah fuck you' is wildly crazy. not impossible, but just plain wild.

ham the bam looks bad for joining the 'not sweet' wagon. rdr was also on the 'will or macca' train, and repeatedly reaffirmed that he wouldn't kill sweet. not super in line with the scum!rdr i know but it's also not a great look.

macca wagon feels town-driven
will wagon feels scum-driven
sweet wagon feels town-driven
at t-0:26 i would be willing to bet that at most one of the sweet voters was scum, the wagon with the most scum on was will, and the macca wagon had one or so. the off-wagon voters (bozo, jamie, chaqa, macca) could obviously have one but hard to read anything into chaqa or (less so) macca.

tl;dr:
bozo/jamie likely good
hb/rd bad
will conditional on an understanding of him that i lack, but his voters suck.
worcej/ghug likely good

So I want to bring this back up because I thought it was helpful and all the work that was put in supported a townread of Bona at the time, in my opinion.

Some notes:
- Was posted early on Day 2
- Bona may or may not have visited someone on Night 1
- Jamie did not drop any Bona-related crumbs at the time Bona posted this, unless I missed something
- Bona did look like a key voter in the Day 1 vote since he kept sweet as a leading wagon by making it a 3/3/3 vote

Not sure how that potentially influences the motivations for posting this analysis when he did (alternative being during Night 1, for example). But that's just what I've noticed

[heartthrob24909]

I don't mind being Vig fodder btw

Chaqa voters, what do we think of this? Why would he say this?

[Bonatogether]

did I mislogic too?!?

I think x is true

I think x being true increases the odds of y being true.

I cannot directly confirm x is true.

So I will indirectly measure y.

What's the problem?

affirming the consequent

I'm not claiming chaqa flipping scum confirms bona is scum

it's soft but still present

[Bonatogether]

day 1 vca

So I want to bring this back up because I thought it was helpful and all the work that was put in supported a townread of Bona at the time, in my opinion.

Some notes:
- Was posted early on Day 2
- Bona may or may not have visited someone on Night 1
- Jamie did not drop any Bona-related crumbs at the time Bona posted this, unless I missed something
- Bona did look like a key voter in the Day 1 vote since he kept sweet as a leading wagon by making it a 3/3/3 vote

Not sure how that potentially influences the motivations for posting this analysis when he did (alternative being during Night 1, for example). But that's just what I've noticed

the timing is due to personal factors of life

[Chaqa]

I think you're more likely to be correct about that if that's true.

Bona being scum gives much higher likelihood to you being scum. And nothing you've done this game leads me to move you out of "null".

And since rdr is correct that I can't vote Bona without a CC...

You're doing the classic mistake of "I think x is true, and if x is true, y is true, so we should assume y is true"

X is that bona is scum
Y is that Chaqa is scum

did I mislogic too?!?

I think x is true

I think x being true increases the odds of y being true.

I cannot directly confirm x is true.

So I will indirectly measure y.

What's the problem?

You, in fact, can directly confirm x is true.

If we kill Bona.

[Chaqa]

did I mislogic too?!?

I think x is true

I think x being true increases the odds of y being true.

I cannot directly confirm x is true.

So I will indirectly measure y.

What's the problem?

affirming the consequent

I'm not claiming chaqa flipping scum confirms bona is scum

Then how was I D1 "open-Chaqaing"?

Your theory rests on all 3 being scum

[bozotheclown]

How does going public help?

They should shoot today and then either during the night or during the next day.

If the Vig wanted input, they could announce who they planned on shooting and let everyone discuss, then do the same at night. If the mafia are well hidden, the mafia would welcome the Vig shooting early and often.

They could roleblock iff the target is scum, which is deeply suboptimal for town.

I assumed the Vig shot would be processed immediately at night and not be subject to a roleblock.

[BunnyGo]

You're doing the classic mistake of "I think x is true, and if x is true, y is true, so we should assume y is true"

X is that bona is scum
Y is that Chaqa is scum

did I mislogic too?!?

I think x is true

I think x being true increases the odds of y being true.

I cannot directly confirm x is true.

So I will indirectly measure y.

What's the problem?

You, in fact, can directly confirm x is true.

If we kill Bona.

I cite rdr's post as the logical issue there.

[bozotheclown]

It's painful to say this, but Bona isn't the kill today. We don't kill uncced PR claims if there is a chance the claim is true, even if small. And it will resolve one way orc another.

I think Vig shooting today is a good idea, either the lead wagon at 24h mark or a Vig choice. Another shoot at EON is good only if the first hit Mafia. If not we need to give time to real doc CC tomorrow and Vig solve the problem.

##vote Chaqa - How it's a town reaction to this ask for Vig to shoot Bona?

Tem also believed Bona's claim too easily, I can't see any town not being at least a bit suspicious of Bona's claim.

Do you think if Temasek is mafia he knows Bonatogether is the doctor, or is trying to protect him?

[BunnyGo]

affirming the consequent

I'm not claiming chaqa flipping scum confirms bona is scum

Then how was I D1 "open-Chaqaing"?

Your theory rests on all 3 being scum

To be fair: I think you'd post that as scum with them being any combination of T/T, S/S, T/S.

You'd also post that as town.

Hence "open-Chaqaing"

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Can you expand on this thought process?

I can’t really. I have no clue what might go on later in the day, so I will hold until I see something that might sway my notion that Bona is lying

This, though, I don't love. You can always change your vote.

Well theres no difference between voting later and changing my vote later