|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Circus: Mafia on the Planet Dimthing Tourist Bus
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Zapaterietxe did spot Reppik
I'd like to know what it was that I said which gave me away, and what I could/should have said to try and counter that suspicion.
I'm going to go with the smugness of having been right when he was all wrong and say that it was probably about the same thing that gave me, Lovely Leslie, Choey, Hophtrig and Otto away. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
[cross-posted.]
Zapaterietxe made one correct call, and then was dead wrong for his next five calls while expressing them with even more certainty than his Reppik-call. His certainty about Otto and Eliabulon contributed, it seems to me, to the snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory failure of our final vote.
I'm not sure I'm ever going to give credence to Zapaterietxe or his descendants on a Mafia trip again. Sorry, Ariston.
I made lots of mistakes. The problem is I can't see how to fix them. For example if I'd been more decisive about Eliabulon in the last vote and voted quickly, we might have won. But I was decisive about Hophtrig in the previous vote, and that turned out to be wrong.
I think it goes to show what I said at the beginning: the Mafia always win (except as Crimson pointed out, when the hyper-intelligent Shade Of Red is alive and Innocent), and analysis is useless.
[ 21. April 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wet Kipper:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Zapaterietxe did spot Reppik
I'd like to know what it was that I said which gave me away, and what I could/should have said to try and counter that suspicion.
vineyard
i suspect i didn't help when i confused who had corrected my mafia count (and I was only too happy.for the sinth to be undervalue)
It added up to your role being negative.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Whoa, that's a first!
Floaty Ios emerges from the PHHH, mailbox pruners in hand, and hurries away to do a bit of PM gardening.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Mailbox pruned, Ios lies down in the emerald-green grass and gazes up at the lapis lazuli sky listening to Otto playing the flute.
Fictitious A. lies down beside her, happily reading Philippa Gregory's The Wise Woman.
Prone and supine, the two friends rest contentedly in a pleasant chiastic haze.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
Can we have some netherrack ready in case the Grafinn drops by?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starbug
Shipmate
# 15917
|
Posted
Fictitous A, in answer to your question, I was trying to give you a clue in my death post. Before posting I checked with Dafyd what I was allowed to say in that post; he said I couldn't say anything that I hadn't already said during the course of the game. As I'd already alluded to the Grafinn's guilt in a previous post, I felt that it was ok to say 'Don't trust THE' - unfortunately, this was then spun in different directions by various Possessed beings. For example, they quoted me saying 'the Hop-Thing' (which I'd forgotten about!)
John, I'm curious about why you'd choose to save the 'reverse' detective, Crimson, rather than the real detective?
--------------------
“Oh the pointing again. They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?” ― The Day of the Doctor
Posts: 1189 | From: West of the New Forest | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
So when you said you were suspicious of the Grafinn, was that after your Night Two investigation and confirmation of the Grafinn's Possessed nature?
If we had known that the Detective would find out their result immediately and could talk about it, rather than at 8 a.m. only and only if not murdered, we might have responded completely differently.
Sigh. I don't think I would have realized that this was an unquestioned assumption of mine, that we should have asked Dafyd about. That's the problem with unquestioned assumptions of course: you don't -- you logically can't! -- question them.
Eliab or Codine, did you have any inkling of this timing thing? Did you know or suspect that Starbug had certain knowledge of Eliabulon from a Night Two investigation, and was trying to warn us about it?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
What gave away Reppik? Easy. I wanted to play as a hyper-rational, Purg regular, logic-choppery, deductivething. It's not a way I've ever tried before, and I'm pretty sure I won't be trying it again. It's why I decided to cook up another angel (well, besides that I never did get to flesh out my last one as much as I wanted, and the story ended at exactly the wrong point in her character development)—a being of pure rationality, always on a philosopher attack, perfectly ethical but never feeling, an insanely powerful absolute idealist, seemed perfect for the strategy. Every being who managed to fit with my methods—pick the ones I didn't overtly suspect—probably spoke the same language as me, as AR might put it. Reppik slipped up in a way that I could see, that looked clearly irrational.
The first day is usually wasted—nobody wants to lynch, usually—so I was looking for anything that might get something useful out of it. So I decided to make up a way of talking, to see what we could get, and, with luck, cause someone to slip up when they saw something they didn't suspect. Which is exactly what happened with Reppik—he tried to stop the discussion, and keep control of things, I saw something that didn't fit with what I expected, and latched on to it.
Of course, my tendency to read anything touchy-feely, cuddly, or non-rational as underhanded emotional manipulation and blackmail made me suspect everyone else. After I was killed, and Ios became less rational, I started suspecting her, even. Really strongly suspecting her. The second time I suspected Eliab, and the first time it was more than a "maybe…", was when I saw on the PM box thread in AS that Dafyd was trying to PM him. Of course, by that time, I was dead.
Also, I think I may have picked the wrong game to be really and truly tired of people automatically being suspicious of Eliab simply for being Eliab. Just maybe.
AR, I would like to point out two things, in my defense: there were at least two and a half days (every time I went quiet) that I wouldn't characterize myself as confident at all (indeed, making assertions at all); indeed, if JFH hadn't made a false doctor claim and started accusing me, I might have stayed quiet that day as well. Furthermore, if you look at our voting records, you'll see that I voted for a guilty being twice while I was alive, and only voted for Joostein once—giving me the same or better voting record over the same stretch of time as everybody else. However, there is a reason why I listened to you; like I said, you saw things I missed. I'm beginning to agree that, perhaps, spreadsheets and reasoning aren't the best way through this game. As we saw, fluffiness and insanity trigger suspicion (and, I think, not just from me—I think I was just "best" able to articulate why I was suspicious of anyone or anything trying to play the World's Smallest Violin, and it always made sense to at least a few others), even when the only thing to suspect is that someone is genuinely fluffy or insane.
(Side note: it's going to be hard to remember everybody's proper names and genders again. Gwai, I know I kept bungling Codine's gender—though at least part of that is because my mental picture of him/it was of the statue I used to use as my avatar, which is intentionally ambiguous as to gender. I think at one point I thought about cycling through pronouns, or just borrowing one of the many artificially constructed gender-neutral ones, before abandoning that as something Z. would have done, but I don't know if I could keep up)
One thing I've been waiting weeks to respond to: John mentioned he would have given a lot to see my face after we booted Joostein off the bus. Let me tell you, it would have almost been worth beignets and chicory coffee to see it. I wasn't kidding about the head meeting the wall. Or the checking my PM box to make sure I wasn't actually on the other side. JFH played Joostein with such perfect insanity, the exact kind of insanity that I would (and have!) used to cover things up and conceal—was doing exactly the kinds of things I would have done if I were Possessed and trying to assert control over proceedings that weren't going the way I'd like them to—that I knew he had to be hiding something. Nobody (no, not even the person with "insane unicorn" as their title) would ever be that off-the-charts insane without having something to hide.
So much for that. I would ask the ghost of Z, whose Basque name I couldn't spell either, what he thinks, but he's busy with lunch; apparently, porkpie hats aren't actually half bad if you put enough mustard on them. I'm not sure if his offer to share with me is because it's really good mustard and everything tastes good if you put enough of it on, or if he doesn't want to have to finish his hat himself.
Regarding detectives and PM's: I'm beginning to wonder if the benefit of detectives isn't so much that they let you know who's guilty so much as they let you know who isn't. If you get someone like me who suspects (or can't read) anyone being irrational or emotional—especially when I'm in the headspace Z. came out of—having someone handy to say "no, that's just them, it's okay" would have been helpful. I know my first game, when I was one of the two detectives (and the only one that didn't get bumped off early), my clearing half the village helped more than finding any of the mafia. It also helped that nobody ever said that I couldn't PM the people I cleared…so I did. I can't say that having a counterforce of known innocents didn't help.
Now, as the designated person who had to read every post twice (first as Host, then as player), click every one of your links, fix your coding errors and double posts, and otherwise make sure you (we?) were Playing Nicely Enough even while killing each other off and accusing each other of being murderous and evil: I think Mafia may be on a break for a while. We've had two games in quick succession, and, while one of them was pretty quick, this one has been a bit Epic; perhaps giving things time to breathe wouldn't be such a bad idea. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to another mystery/role playing-type game—I think our last game of Clue went fairly well, no?—if someone could figure out something that would be SoF workable. Much as I've joked about organizing a DnD campaign (okay, I don't know if it was a joke), I don't think anything with dice rolls and individual players taking turns is going to work across multiple time zones.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
Ios/Figment A, I think your questions have already been answered:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
To add, I'd presumed Lady Celandine investigated Eliab on her first night.
and:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If we had known that, we would have made more of an effort to decide quickly.
As for the unmade assumption, I'm pretty sure most if not all of us went for the same conclusion. I have actually posed that question before, back in Ypres, but it was made clear to me that it was then a simultaneous thing.
I think we should probably make this clear at the outset in the future, just as the ability for the doctor to self-protect and serial-protect, just so everyone knows what to assume.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Otto's fictitious friend has been jetlag legging it around London with teal £ife offspring, where it's about 25° warmer than it is at home.
ISTM that the game was more intuitive than reasoning. Certianly later on. Otto had never travelled before and was uncertain much of the time what might be going on. I also invented detail about him based on my rather opaque, even to me, fantasy life.
Much of the time, I was feeling like the characters in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, particular in the company of Hophtrig. A murder mystery in the absurd theatre of ShipBus.
"The play opens with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern betting on coin flips. Rosencrantz, who bets heads each time, wins ninety-two flips in a row. The extreme unlikeliness of this event according to the laws of probability leads Guildenstern to suggest that they may be "within un-, sub- or supernatural forces".
[ 21. April 2014, 17:06: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starbug:
John, I'm curious about why you'd choose to save the 'reverse' detective, Crimson, rather than the real detective?
Because I didn't know you were the detective until you were dead. I saw your post about sitting next to me, but I thought it was role playing in the same vein as asking for bread. Even then, I remembered it as denouncing Otto; Eliab I think was the one who pointed out otherwise.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Ariston, will you ever trust Eliab again?
Oh, of course I will. That's the great thing about this game—who you are changes every time you play. I don't even keep the same strategy each game, lest I fall into ruts; surprisingly for me, this is the first time I've ever actually tried a full-on logical strategy. I tried playing quiet once, in Ypres; it got me killed the first day. I tried being insane once, in Australia; it got the mafia killed pretty quickly when I sold them out. The one time I was ever guilty, I faked a close character reading, "those strategies don't add up," blame Eliab, somewhat intuitive strategy; the Guardians won a flawless victory. I've been a detective twice, successfully on my first trip out, unsuccessfully when I got spotted. I've been the gamemaster before, which may be my favorite of all, creating a high-concept, complicated rules setting one time around, a minimalist and simple one the next. In the past, I've worked alongside some of the people I most sincerely wanted to see debussed this time around.
Now, I realize I change up strategies and personae pretty often, and other people may not do this as much, but, really, just because someone backstabbed you once doesn't mean they'll do it again for a long time.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
JFH, thanks for putting 2 + 2 together for me about Gwai's post and my question.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
The second time I suspected Eliab, and the first time it was more than a "maybe…", was when I saw on the PM box thread in AS that Dafyd was trying to PM him.
I spotted that too, and it made me pretty sure -- though not sure enough to vote decisively quickly in our last vote. I think hardly anything could ever make Ios/A. feel that sure. The blast of certainty I had when I looked up Jay-Emm's other posts was like nothing I've ever experienced before, and I don't expect to ever experience it again. It made me wonder if that's how sure some people feel about God. Anyway, I had spotted Dafyd's post on the "Empty your PM box" thread, but I thought it was such an extra-game piece of evidence that it wouldn't be fair to mention it. Plus it could have other explanations -- perhaps Dafyd was PMing an Innocent Eliab to see if he was OK, given his long bus absence at that point. After misleading myself so much over Reppik's ghostly post, I didn't want to go so whole-hog over any other piece of "not supposed to normally contain information" type of post.
Here's how I feel about Hegel (having read in Hell about Ariston's Mafia-prep use for him): judging by bus-board events, apparently Hegel is frighteningly confident about everything and almost always wrong. Excellent, one more incomprehensible philosopher I don't have to feel guilty about not reading.
Eliab, I'm absolutely serious about not having read most of your last-Dimthing-night posts, and the reason for it (item # "quadruple") that I gave in Ios' last living post. At some point I may reread them, to admire the gifts of an incredibly skilled lawyer. If I ever were to walk into a courtroom and get told "Eliab is opposing counsel" I would turn around and walk out immediately and tell my lawyer: "Let's settle."
A lot of this game this time around has been frighteningly similar to the real-life stuff going on for me. It's quite uncanny. I suppose the silver lining is that it has shown me how incredibly shockingly different people really are, even when they're all Innocent and trying for the same goal, and how many deep problems those differences can cause.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alban
Shipmate
# 9047
|
Posted
An absolutely brilliant game that one. And we were so close to lynching Eliab while she was away. I wouldn't hesitate for a second climbing on board again - trusting Eliab though, loooong hesitation!
--------------------
Whoever you are, wherever you go, Hophtrig is your friend!
Posts: 722 | From: Under a (long white) cloud | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Here's how I feel about Hegel (having read in Hell about Ariston's Mafia-prep use for him): judging by bus-board events, apparently Hegel is frighteningly confident about everything and almost always wrong. Excellent, one more incomprehensible philosopher I don't have to feel guilty about not reading.
Two things: Z's frightening confidence was him, not me (the doubt was me, not him—he may be a part of me, but he isn't me); in this overrated RL game we keep talking about, I'm about the least confident, most doubt-ridden person ever. It's a source of endless amusement to my friends. If I were a better actor, I might have been able to play it off as "acceptable losses, let's move on," which is what I actually set out intending to do, but I couldn't. In my mind, his voice is always changing depending on how he wants it to sound; in his more confident moments, he sounded like my grad school colleagues and professors, while he sounded most like me when speaking from the mustard pot.
As for Hegel, he's actually pretty cool—Nietzche, Marx, Sartre, and to some extent Mahler are just ripping him off (with Marx and Mahler adding analysis of wealth and music theory to the mix), but boy is he a bad writer. I'd recommend Peter Kalkavage's The Logic of Desire over actually diving headfirst into the Phenomenology. Note to future authors: don't discuss a horribly crucial idea at the beginning of the book by making reference to something you only talk about at the very end.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
The second time I suspected Eliab, and the first time it was more than a "maybe…", was when I saw on the PM box thread in AS that Dafyd was trying to PM him.
And this may have been related, but I was our spokesperson, so ironically, it may not have been too.
Well, there, you see! It turns out I was right to not go whole-hog behind it, because it could have other meanings beyond the first one that might leap to mind.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Plus it could have other explanations -- perhaps Dafyd was PMing an Innocent Eliab to see if he was OK, given his long bus absence at that point.
I was asking Eliab if he were ok. I suppose I might not have noticed his absence if he hadn't been Possessed, but as Gwai says she was the spokesperson.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Note to future authors: don't discuss a horribly crucial idea at the beginning of the book by making reference to something you only talk about at the very end.
Oh Christ Oh Christ Oh Christ I can't stand it. I've been in agony over an email I received Saturday night which I only deciphered today made sense in light of something that was said only at the very end, and in passing. (Doesn't remove other problems with the email, but cuts the agony in half.)
OK God, you've had your laughs. I get your point. Could you cut it out now? This Life imitating Art imitating Life imitating Art thing is getting OLD.
On the bright side, fictitious A. has managed to move her Fake Work office without falling down the stairs once. Maybe things are looking up in the pratfalls-and-crazy-adventures department.
[ETA: ha, incipient pratfalls-and-crazy-adventure in the guise of a typo: I found you before the Edit window expired. Looks around fearfully wondering which other typos she has missed even while boasting about finding a typo.]
[ 21. April 2014, 18:17: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
There was one reason, and one reason only, I was disappointed to find out the combination of Ios and Otto or Hophtrig was innocent: it would have made a great solution to the Second Partridge dilemma. Was Ja'ayem trying to distract us from lynching O or H, or was he making a really cunning double bluff we'd never suspect by pointing at I? Chase the partridge, we leave the nest alone—but if we don't, we find out there was a bomb in the nest all along. No matter how it played out, the other party would have ended up looking better. It's a solution to the problem that's so clever, it couldn't possibly be right, but would it have ever been cool if it was.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Note to future authors: don't discuss a horribly crucial idea at the beginning of the book by making reference to something you only talk about at the very end.
Oh Christ Oh Christ Oh Christ I can't stand it. I've been in agony over an email I received Saturday night which I only deciphered today made sense in light of something that was said only at the very end, and in passing. (Doesn't remove other problems with the email, but cuts the agony in half.)
OK God, you've had your laughs. I get your point. Could you cut it out now? This Life imitating Art imitating Life imitating Art thing is getting OLD.
There's nothing quite so much fun as reading (about?) Hegel on the master/slave dialectic or the ever uncertain, decision-phobic skeptic and realizing he's describing the situation on this insomnia-inducing game perfectly.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The blast of certainty I had when I looked up Jay-Emm's other posts was like nothing I've ever experienced before, and I don't expect to ever experience it again. It made me wonder if that's how sure some people feel about God.
I'm intrigued, was that when you decided I was guilty, decided there might be more, decided on the 2nd partridge theory?
But in the meantime I must be able to use that as an awesome reference.
quote:
Was Ja'ayem trying to distract us from lynching O or H, or was he making a really cunning double bluff we'd never suspect...
The thought of double bluffing had crossed my mind. The thought of it never being suspected hadn't. I did pick who to nominate at random so it could have happened that way.
And it was a reason to get the voting over quickly and go quiet. Any further posts would be another phase of bluff (regardless of whether the initial bit was straight, bluff or double bluff) and getting it right was beyond me.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
After reading your posts elsewhere, that was when I decided you were guilty. There was no way someone posting with the sophistication that Jay-Emm was showing on the Caribbean Reparations thread was also actually as clumsy and obtuse as Ja'ayem was appearing to be.
When you signed yourself "kettle" was when I started to suspect that there might be another layer that I wasn't seeing yet.
It was only after you had been revealed as the Sympathiser that I realized I had probably been played, and that the whole point of the exercise was to cause me (or someone) to blow up and lynch you.
It was a few days later as I was on one of my interminable drives to and from Other State, Six States Over, that I started thinking about what I might do as the Sympathiser, and came up with Second Partridge. (Criminal descendants of Ios are ready to throttle me for revealing their future strategies.)
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
This may be another argument for delaying our next game of lying, stinking criminals and misguided vigilantes. We need time to cook up new strategies and forget our old ones.
Oh, and AR: I never did get a chance to thank you for posting the blue eyes puzzle at the very beginning of the trip. I've been thinking about its solution ever since.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Glad you've liked it. The blue eyes puzzle turns out to be frighteningly apt for Mafia: In the face of incomplete information, what can you deduce from others' behaviour, knowing that they are all trying to deduce things from your own behaviour?
There is a major difference though: On the island of blue- and brown-eyed people, everyone is a perfectly logical reasoner and they all come to the correct conclusion at the same time.
I wonder what the puzzle would be like if blue/brown-eyed islanders exhibited all the varied characters that we have collectively exhibited over the past Dimthing week.
Probably either "nothing ever happens and they all live happily ever after" or "they throw things together on a heap, it turns out to be a nuclear bomb, they all blow themselves up on Day Two." Either outcome happening at pure random.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
The other question that I have no idea how to make work in this context is how you can trust other people who work completely differently than you. I really, honestly, and truly believed that Lesley and Choey were entirely guilty—it explained everything. The only thing that gave me any pause, at least at first, was that it explained things too well; there was just no way I could have gotten that lucky! Everything that the more pathos oriented characters went with fit my profile of "guilty" so well that, lacking any sort of "innocent, but they just act that way" profile (though by about the time we got to lynching Hophtrig, I tried to cook one up), I couldn't see any way they could not be guilty. Codine and Eliabulon? Logical. Dry. Reasoned. Orderly. Gave me reasons when questioned. Never dodged. May perhaps have been incomplete, but still gave reasons. It's what I was looking for, and so they fit my "innocent" profile.
So, perhaps, if there was someone who could have been cleared who wasn't choppy, who could think in a way completely different than Z/I/J, it might have been helpful. H was just close enough to how I was working (and answered my questions when I put them to him in a way that was helpful) that I eventually started using him as my Fluffdar, but, by that point, it was too late.
Maybe it's another argument for cooperation—I will never, ever spot a logic-chopping guilty character so long as they're even slightly careful, as they'll always look perfect to me—but, of course, this game discourages cooperation. If John hadn't been cleared, I would have likely been somewhat suspicious of him all game long, more so than Ios, simply because he agreed with me so readily!
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Maybe it's another argument for cooperation—I will never, ever spot a logic-chopping guilty character so long as they're even slightly careful, as they'll always look perfect to me—but, of course, this game discourages cooperation. If John hadn't been cleared, I would have likely been somewhat suspicious of him all game long, more so than Ios, simply because he agreed with me so readily!
This is why I suck so much at being innocent. I am complete crap at suspecting any logical person, and of course anyone who is not-logical, and blatant enough for me to see them, has been seen by everyone else already!
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
On the other hand, you're completely brilliant at being guilty and appearing innocent.
The innocent don't all necessarily have to find the guilties. It's equally useful to simply not look guilty so we don't waste a turn by lynching you.
[ 21. April 2014, 19:39: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Ariston, I kept having to double-check that Zapatereitxe and John The Less were cleared by unchallenged role-claim, because you both kept on saying things that seemed utterly lunatic to me.
I am going to reincarnate on the next bus trip as a loveable cuddly teddy bear who loves poetry, in homage to Hophtrig and Otto. Whether I'll be able to lay off my addiction to fruitless analysis, I don't know. I'm debating whether I can bring myself to carry through with my current idea to do all nominations and votes by random number generator. It seems it would be at least as useful as my current approach.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
On the other hand, you're completely brilliant at being guilty and appearing innocent.
The innocent don't all necessarily have to find the guilties. It's equally useful to simply not look guilty so we don't waste a turn by lynching you.
Most of my characters tend to be sometimes told they seem somewhat shady--in RL mafia games back in college and here--so when I combine that fact with the fact that you all now know I can pull off Codine-types*, I have absolutely no hopes that I'll be able to fly under you all's radar again regardless of my role!
*I pronounced his name Codine in my head because he was trying to "drug" everyone into ignoring him.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Eliab or Codine, did you have any inkling of this timing thing? Did you know or suspect that Starbug had certain knowledge of Eliabulon from a Night Two investigation, and was trying to warn us about it?
We didn't know it, but obviously as we did know that I was actually guilty, we suspected that Starbug might have been told about night two's investigation before being assassinated.
It was also possible (though rather unlikely) that I'd been the night one investigation, and we were just making shit up about her having cleared John. But from our point of view, though, it didn't really matter what she'd been told or when - the only thing that mattered was putting a spin on her words that didn't inescapably incriminate me.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
A view from the dark side:
Overall: We were mostly playing our own games throughout without very much collusion at all – so any accusation, nomination, defence or argument a player made was that person's work. We never tried to stack the pool of nominations, or concoct arguments against each other which we would not have made if innocent. We did discuss murders, although I don't think there was ever any serious argument about the choices we made. Please note, though, that my reasons for victim selection may not have been Gwai's or Wet Kipper's.
Day/night one: No lynching and Crimson murdered. This was a piece of pure luck. Crimson was my suggestion: I thought she'd be high up on any doctor's 'protect' list, but Zapaterietxe was being so active and so astute that I thought he'd probably be the protectee that night if the doctor did not protect his/her self. Basically, I thought we had a shot at taking vie out, and if you get a shot at her, you take it. Sheer good luck that she was also the inspector.
Day two: Reppik is lynched. This was tough. Zapaterietxe had made a good call for good reasons – Reppik's post did look to me like a voice in favour of less discussion, and when Zapaterietxe called him on it, I could not easily find a reason to disagree without acting in a way that I'd never have done if innocent. On day one, I had plausible reasons for voting for Joostein (we'd nominated each other), on day two, there was no such excuse. This was the one day with serious behind-the-scenes discussion amongst the Possessed: and in the end I decided that committing to a 'save Reppik' strategy was probably futile, and an unacceptable risk. It was me who suggested that Reppik make a role claim at this point (having nothing to lose) – which he did rather unwillingly. Daisy didn't fall for it, though, which was a smart move.
Night two: We went detective-hunting. No one post gave Celandine away, but she was acting most like we expected a detective to act. Hit and destroyed.
Day three: The day of insanity. Joostein was now totally focussed on me, and, of course, totally right, and Celandine's dying words were none too helpful. Fortunately she had left a hint that her first investigation was on John (would everyone have seen that if I hadn't pushed it so hard?) which was masterfully subtle on first reading, and pretty clear with the benefit of hindsight, so arguing the line that she could not be accusing me from special knowledge was plausible.
Joostein's false role call was, in retrospect, an error which sealed his fate, but I will now confess that when he posted it, I had no reason to doubt it, and came very close indeed to making a counter claim of my own. Had I done so, John would have exposed us both as liars, and I'd have been dead. The one think that stopped me claiming was the endgame condition (which I'll discuss below): once a murderer makes a false role claim, he's doomed in the long term, and we simply could not afford sacrifices. I felt I had no choice but to bluff it out.
Then John made the genuine claim, and, because I was arguing (correctly, as it turns out, though obviously I didn't care about that in the least) that Celandine had proved him innocent, making a case against Joostein became rather easier.
Night three: Both detectives dead, doctor known but capable of self-protection, three killers alive, but with my credibility having taken a hit. We wanted a kill, any kill, to get to a winning position as quickly as possible. Daisy was the best choice for a victim who would be unguarded and whose death sent no messages.
Day four: This was the fatal mistake. We needed two votes to go our way, and we'd won, so picking the targets from the thee surviving people who hadn't votes for Reppik was the way to go. We know that they were all innocent, because obviously the sympathiser was Ios. It couldn't have been clearer that it was her. The “I know the colour of your eyes” puzzle was blatantly a clue, the way she picked up every single discussion about the sympathiser and how that affected the game was another, and the fact that she was posting sensible analysis with nice helpful conclusions about the various hints that I was innocent confirmed it. My 'USS Pot to IKV Kettle' post took the opportunity for a snarky one-liner to convey “message received” to Ios as our secret ally. When she posted (to Ja'ayem):
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Still supposing you're Innocent -- console yourself for missing Reppik's guilt. Why, by your lights either you've caught the Guilty Otto and you can point to your early knowledge of his Guilt in the Reppik Tew vote, or Otto will be Innocent and you can point to your skill in fingering the Guilty Trio of the Monstrously Subtle And Devious Ios, Codine, and Eliabulon.
an already strong conviction turned to certainty. Ios was definitely the sympathiser.
And then it turned out to be Ja'ayem.
Oops.
Night four: Two killers left. Two known innocents. The tie-break rule meant that if both known innocents lasted to the end we would lose. We had to kill one. But if we hit Zapaterietxe first, we had to give up hope of ever killing John (only another known innocent could reasonably tempt him not to self-protect), and that meant both of us had to survive. That looked rather optimistic at that point. We thought that having tried for a relatively inactive player before, John's guard might be down. It wasn't.
Day five: At least we had a clear run at Choey today, following the logic that had proved so disastrously right the day before.
Night five: Nothing had changed since the previous night. It had to be Zapaterietxe or John. John might not be expecting us to go for him twice in a row. Didn't work.
Day six: I was mostly out of circulation for this one. Hophtrig, though, was still in the suspicious set of those who voted to save Reppik. Not much of a surprise to see that he had gone.
Night six: Codine's sole call on the assassination. In the absence of my bad advice, she picked right, and we got rid of the angel. We were now committed to both surviving, since we had to assume that John was effectively unkillable.
Day seven: The beginning of the end. We had to win this vote to get our last chance at murder. And it was a tough one: John was, rightly, very suspicious of me at this point, but in the end stuck to his nomination of Otto. And then it was all down to the final night.
Evening, day seven: Should we try to kill Ios or John? John had out-guessed us twice already, but would naturally incline to protecting the one person he knew was innocent. Of course, he would know that we would know that, and so if he thought he had a good idea who was the other last innocent, he might protect them instead. And if he did, he'd probably be right. Could we influence that? Only by undermining his trust in Ios. We didn't need to prove her guilty, just make John unsure enough that protecting her would be a tough decision to make. Everything I posted at that point was to that end.
Since we were going for her in the night, there wouldn't ever have been a contested vote the next day. Either she'd be dead, and we'd win, or John would protect her, and therefore know that she had to be innocent. So any attacks on each other didn't matter any more – the only thing that mattered was getting enough doubt that John wouldn't be absolutely sure of Ios's innocence and therefore guard her.
I don't know what influence (if any) we managed to achieve. I suspect it was basically a coin toss at this stage. But even a coin toss can be satisfying, if you call it right. It doesn't get much closer than that.
Ja'ayem's death was the turning point. Up to that point, I felt pretty much that things were under control. We'd done for the investigators, Reppik's loss was unfortunate but affordable, and with our friend steering the discussion in our favour as she does so well, it looked like a safe win. As soon as Ja'ayem went, and Ios suddenly wasn't on our side any more, we were up against it. I was quite surprised that we made it in the end.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A view from the dark side:
I was going to try the Doctor impersonation, but I'd really misjudged my comments earlier and in any case it was redundant by the time I was back.
Surprised you didn't catch me as the sympathizer earlier in that day.
I was worried at that point that I'd be murdered in the night (which would have been doubly bad).
The other worry was it was looking like I'd be lynched after Choey but before Hophtrig.
If I was third it didn't matter (we'd have won)
But if I tried for Hop and failed then questions would have been asked and you seemed precarious (after all Joostein had just been spot on except for me, and you had voted last for Reppik).
But if I could give you the credit for catching me and get the next (two) lynches fixed then you just needed to get 3 corresponding kills (and hopefully the doctor would be protecting you).
But I had hoped to be more subtle and leave both options open.
The Synth was interesting as I obviously had no idea how in control E&C were (and had to worry about them mis-targeting).
[ 21. April 2014, 21:42: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Thoughts on the set up
First thought: “Four mafia? FFS, Dafyd, they'll absolutely walk it unless you pick utter cretins!”
Second thought: “Mafia! Woo hoo! Gwai and Wet Kipper, too? Easy win”
Third thought: “FFS, Dafyd! Two detectives and an unkillable doctor? We are so dead”
All of these thoughts were, of course, utterly wrong.
Four straight-up mafia would have been too much, but with the sympathiser dynamic and the tie-break rule, it worked. I really liked the way the sympathiser played out, and the effect it had on analysis. I like that the mafia have something to deduce as well as the town.
I don't think the inspector/detective split was significantly less good for the town than two old-style detectives. Sure, as long as both investigators and everyone they checked is still alive, their information is unreliable, but that simply won't last long enough to matter (and if it does last, the town probably has enough information to win anyway). Two detectives is damned scary from this side of the table: if we hadn't taken them down so quickly, we'd have lost.
I think an unkillable doctor played well (as this one certainly was) is incredibly strong. John was the central focus of the end game. An unkillable doctor plus the tie-break condition was the single most significant factor in determining our strategy. It meant that one of the Possessed could not win the game alone, and two possessed had to wipe out everyone but the doctor to win. If another confirmed innocent had made it to the end, we'd have needed three surviving killers.
Was that an intended effect of the rule, or was it there simply be make successful lynching a bit easier? In the past we've had games with “50+% of the vote or 50% with no unified opposition” as the threshold for lynching, which has a similar effect on voting without slanting the end-game. As it was, I think we were very luckly to win after losing Ja'ayem. I'm pleased that we did it (against solid opposition) but I'd be inclined to go a little easier on the killers in future games.
The 'unreadables' were a town advantage, though not a major one. It isn't much of a benefit to the mafia to have someone detect as 'unreadable' when there's only two of those, and one of them has to be guilty. An 'out' detective checking Reppik could have said “Reppik's unreadable – is there an innocent unreadable who'll say he's guilty?” and got a result. If she'd checked Zapaterietxe, and asked the same, she'd have a confirmed innocent – Reppik wouldn't have broken cover to sink an innocent unreadble knowing that he'd then be exposed as guilty. The real effect of having the unreadables was that Zapaterietxe could establish his innocence – a useful thing for an astute, analysis-heavy risk-taker – and constrain somewhat our choice of targets. I like having unreadables, but if they were there to limit the power of the detectives, I don't think that they did to any meaningful degree. To do that, I think you have to say “two of you are unreadable to investigation, and that has no correlation whatever to guilt and innocence” or possibly “unreadables don't have their allegience revealed on death”.
For all that, four guilty players is a lot – it meant we could safely take one casualty, that we had a potentially powerful block vote, and a lot of opportunity to steer discussion. I think it's proof of a very good game that with strong advantages on both sides, this was a knife-edge result.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
I was worried at that point that I'd be murdered in the night (which would have been doubly bad).
By my reading of the rules, had we murdered you late in the game, you might have been the critical tie-break vote if the living players had split 50/50.
It's probably evidence of my devious nature that I considered whether it would be worth killing one of the Possessed on the last night. Going for either John or Ios had, it seemed to me, a 50% chance of victory in either case. If it had looked like better than evens that John would vote to lynch Ios than me or Codine (which, in fact, it didn't) we could have murdered the other Possessed, waited for the vote to go against Ios the next day, and then have had a dead-Possessed in the wings to break the inevitably tied one-against-one vote our way. I dismissed it as a losing play, but it would have been a wonderfully insane plan.
The other batshit-crazy scheme I had waiting in the wings if you'd survived to the end was that if we were ever faced with the situation that the Possessed would definitely win if they murdered an innocent but probably lose if they got their own sympathiser would have been to have claimed to be a sympathiser myself: then we'd either have won if we'd killed an innocent, or exposed my claim as a lie by hitting the real sympathiser, which I could then explain away as a successful deception of the killers only explicable if I'd been innocent. That circumstances for that one never arose, though.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Surprised you didn't catch me as the sympathizer earlier in that day.
I never even considered it. The sympathiser was Ios. It had to be. Nothing else made sense.
So saying "the sympathiser must have voted to save Reppik" was plausible, logical, and completely safe. If people went for it, we were guaranteed to get an innocent.
We could not have been more wrong.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Day three: The day of insanity. Joostein was now totally focussed on me, and, of course, totally right, and Celandine's dying words were none too helpful. Fortunately she had left a hint that her first investigation was on John (would everyone have seen that if I hadn't pushed it so hard?) which was masterfully subtle on first reading, and pretty clear with the benefit of hindsight, so arguing the line that she could not be accusing me from special knowledge was plausible.
Joostein's false role call was, in retrospect, an error which sealed his fate, but I will now confess that when he posted it, I had no reason to doubt it, and came very close indeed to making a counter claim of my own. Had I done so, John would have exposed us both as liars, and I'd have been dead. The one think that stopped me claiming was the endgame condition (which I'll discuss below): once a murderer makes a false role claim, he's doomed in the long term, and we simply could not afford sacrifices. I felt I had no choice but to bluff it out.
Then John made the genuine claim, and, because I was arguing (correctly, as it turns out, though obviously I didn't care about that in the least) that Celandine had proved him innocent, making a case against Joostein became rather easier.
I'd love to discuss this day more, both from an actual impact view as well as a general tactics analysis one.
To begin with, you must take me on my word that the plan was not an error because I died - I was literally dead certain I'd be gone in a couple of days due to my vote against Otto when Reppik was thrown out, there seemed very little coming back from that. So I thought I'd make it worth it - as I stated a couple of times, I was fully prepared to go first if that meant you'd gone second, which I also thought would happen.
There's much more to the false claim than just triggering one of yours, I feel, even if it was almost successful. Also, I figured, had there been a counterclaim even by a sympathizer I would've gotten a Possessed in exchange for my life, which seemed reasonable given my certainty of being on my way out and also of not being able to convince anyone that you, freaking Gwai and the one who was really most Sympathizing with you, Zapa, were guilty. I was wrong about the sympathizer and about Zapa, but killing all of you off would've ended the game, and I'm going to claim some sort of moral victory for now.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
...John The Less... kept on saying things that seemed utterly lunatic to me.
Like what?
Also,
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I dismissed it as a losing play, but it would have been a wonderfully insane plan.
I PM'ed Dafyd on Saturday to ask that very question, because I was worried about it. I never got an answer, which just made me the more worried.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
I'd love to discuss this day more, both from an actual impact view as well as a general tactics analysis one.
To begin with, you must take me on my word that the plan was not an error because I died - I was literally dead certain I'd be gone in a couple of days due to my vote against Otto when Reppik was thrown out, there seemed very little coming back from that. So I thought I'd make it worth it - as I stated a couple of times, I was fully prepared to go first if that meant you'd gone second, which I also thought would happen.
There's much more to the false claim than just triggering one of yours, I feel, even if it was almost successful. Also, I figured, had there been a counterclaim even by a sympathizer I would've gotten a Possessed in exchange for my life, which seemed reasonable given my certainty of being on my way out and also of not being able to convince anyone that you, freaking Gwai and the one who was really most Sympathizing with you, Zapa, were guilty. I was wrong about the sympathizer and about Zapa, but killing all of you off would've ended the game, and I'm going to claim some sort of moral victory for now.
I have read of innocent false role claims before, but I missed the bit where it would be helpful. Thus I was at first dubious about your claim, but I still thought you were probably innocent. I went back and forth throughout that day, and I ultimately voted to lynch you, but the whole time in the back of my mind there was a niggling little detail about how you very well could be innocent. But somehow Eliab wiggled out of it and we lost focus.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
John, I'm sorry, I just can't remember things you said that seemed suspicious. Oh yes here's one: the time late in the game when you suspected Zapa, after his long-unchallenged role claim had shown him innocent.
This behavior -- posting suspicions of role-claimed proven innocent Zapa -- was also what made me very suspicious of Choey. She then posted when I questioned her "oh yes of course he's innocent", but that seemed like a strange way for an innocent to act, to have even made the accusation to start with, without even hedging it with something like "I know this will seem strange given the role claim..." Or "I know it's low odds but let's consider..." or something.
Your completely unannounced flip-flop back to Otto in our final vote was another. There have been others but I don't remember them.
[ 22. April 2014, 00:27: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
John, I'm sorry, I just can't remember things you said that seemed suspicious. Oh yes here's one: the time late in the game when you suspected Zapa, after his long-unchallenged role claim had shown him innocent.
This behavior -- posting suspicions of role-claimed proven innocent Zapa -- was also what made me very suspicious of Choey. She then posted when I questioned her "oh yes of course he's innocent", but that seemed like a strange way for an innocent to act, to have even made the accusation to start with, without even hedging it with something like "I know this will seem strange given the role claim..." Or "I know it's low odds but let's consider..." or something.
Your completely unannounced flip-flop back to Otto in our final vote was another. There have been others but I don't remember them.
Ah, I see. Well, I'm sure I had reasons for all of them, but looking back they aren't very good ones. Like the Otto vote. I wasn't sure which one to choose, so I went back with Zapaterietxe and my nomination (I was kind of ticked off at myself for nominating people and not following through with a vote). Never mind that Eliabulon smelled stinkier or that Zapaterietxe had been wrong umpteen 'leven times by then. Now it looks crazy, but it made sense to me.
I think what I've learned is that I need to stop voting so quickly, even when I think I'm going to be busy later. Turned out I could have voted a bit later and ended up making a better decision. I also need to read everything from the previous day's lynching to the current, so that I can get a better feel for what is happening; I was so busy burying myself in the early week transcripts I forgot to check the recent ones too.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I expect we all did what seemed best and most sensible to us at the time, even if in retrospect it might be hard to capture. Look at all the holes Eliabulon was poking (*) in my completely honest attempts to explain my own reasoning.
(*) at least I gather he was poking holes; I haven't read any of it more than to flick my eye over, see it's Eliabulon in attack mode, and move on.
[ 22. April 2014, 00:45: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
About that: I quickly picked up he was aiming all of that at me; he didn't care what you said or didn't say. Then I saw your thread in All Saints and I thought, "Oh crud, this is going to be fun." I wanted you to know I trusted you, but I wanted him to think I might be protecting him (so that they would come after me instead of you). I couldn't think of a way to do that, so I tried to keep quiet. Not reading it at the time was a smart idea, even without counting your AS thread. Even in the best of circumstances you might have given him even more to throw at me.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I expect we all did what seemed best and most sensible to us at the time, even if in retrospect it might be hard to capture. Look at all the holes Eliabulon was poking (*) in my completely honest attempts to explain my own reasoning.
(*) at least I gather he was poking holes; I haven't read any of it more than to flick my eye over, see it's Eliabulon in attack mode, and move on.
I had the very same approach to replying to Zapa on That Day. I did it for a bit, but noticed my odds, the way things were turning, and that I was up against Zapa and Eliabulon and pretty quickly gave up.
Also, I'd like to apologise to players and hosts for the mess that is the manifesto. It was an overreach of monumental proportions, and 12 hours work wasted because I couldn't get the focus down properly. I had hoped to smack your teeth in and tie you all to taking off Eliabulon, but it seems I stumbled on my own untied shoelaces due to my misfocus. Ah well.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
What's a good game of Mafia without a few good speeches?
Anyway, your death scene made up for it. As was mentioned, that was epic.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Crimson’s algorithms are so staggeringly intelligent that they have worked out how to reassemble themselves enough to communicate again:
I don’t really regret appealing for protection.
I figured my life expectancy was probably going to be short anyway. It’s not the first time I have been first murder victim, which I don’t mind so much – it’s what I get for being good at this game and in anyone else’s position I would murder me first as well . That being the case, I decided that appealing to the doctor wasn’t really putting me in that much additional danger and might help the innocent team.
I was wrong about this but specifically, the player who immediately rang up alarm bells to me was Ariston the unspellable, for being so bloody talkative. He seemed to be trying very hard to take control of the game and I wanted to know what he was up to. Since he has in the past been responsible for killing me first night out, I suspected that if he was guilty he would probably try to do the same thing again. Turns out he wasn’t a killer, but Eliab had the same idea… Oh well.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
I cannot believe how the villains got so many of us to do their dirty work for them. Apart from the fact none of us really wanted to believe Eliab could be Mafia - we all knew if that were so we would be in deep roopoo. And we were.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
2 thoughts:
First, La Vie, I think you should've asked straight out for help. The more I think about it, the more I think that at least the two sheriffs should role-claim straight away. The possible false claims will be costly to the mafia, and limiting the protection pool to 3 will mean it's a very risky strategy for hard-pressed mafioso to go after one of the sheriffs. I think it's especially important for high-profile players as yourself, likely to be taken out anyway and to whom a role-claim would be devastating if false because it takes away your greatest asset, your ability to lie your way through freaking anything. Yes, Eliab, I'm looking at you.
Which leads me to the second point I thought I'd make. John/Bearfoot Friar stated he felt cajoled into claiming to be the doctor. I was aware of that risk when I did the false role-claim, but I thought it worth it. There's a whole lot of calculation behind that move, looking at potential effects, and that was one of them: clearing people.
Whereas the Mafia took Ios to be the sympathizer, nobody else really questioned her reaction to supposedly all hell breaking loose, meaning she was more or less cleared. Zapa could be cleared way too late, after my death, and I hadn't thought of that, but division created a camp where we had a few people who could be expected to be the aims of the mafia but who were also completely trustworthy. I think that was important. Even if Choey went for Zapa occasionally, we saved a lot of fog, noise, patience and thought-power by not always having to discount the 60-70% trust rate for every single player. And it indirectly led to the coin-toss, given the great trust in Ios. For the Mafia, division, limited thought-power and fog is a great asset. Taking a bit of it away can mean the only safe hits are those that cost them the same resources, like killing Daisy meant no talking each day about how she could be totally guilty and sneaky.
That is, of course, as long as nobody places full and total trust in the mafioso, especially not somebody who's cleared and extremely vocal. Not that we'd know anyone like that, of course.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
