Viridian Dreams Forum

Looking back at Witt's logic interchanging James and myself... It looks reasonable given the assumptions he made, though James' demise definitely shows that apparently at least one of the assumptions he made is false (or potentially the claim that Witt is not mafia (although that could also be counted as an assumption)). James' unvote at the last moment did indeed make it sound as if he was not mafia (now extremely obvious).
someone unvoted even earlier, so I still don't peg him to be the mafia type (game rules debate notwithstanding).
Greybane never voted; still don't know about him. gman defended Witt initially; I made my point about consistent voting.

Still no verification of the others. I did eventually vote for Witt, based on the mistakes in the logic (which are fixed switching James and myself, despite the wrong conclusion).

Thoughts on James' death... First of all, mafia didn't (try to) kill Witt. No real evidence either way; Witt is the person of most controversy here; killing him would make us look for new targets if he was not mafia. His doctor claim makes him a target if he's not mafia, but it also makes it likely he is protected (and therefore a bad target; if he turns out to be innocent and is in fact the doctor, it's likely game over for at least one mafia if angelic protection saves him).

Secondly, there's a fairly good reason James was targeted. Assuming mafia do not accuse mafia and mafia do not retract their voice when it seems clear a majority is reached (just a tad stronger than mafia not retracting their voice at all), James' unvote proved he was not mafia. Therefore, his death removed a trustworthy type (and a person unlikely to get a majority of the votes). In my opinion, the most viable reason for James' death; all the others (see next points) have fairly easy counterpoints with various levels of mind screw. The only counterpoint here would involve not killing James in order to be able to claim that he is playing a deep mind game by saving Witt. Very, VERY unlikely.

Thirdly, killing James shows Witt's logic was missing some points (as noted above). Several possible motivations here.
(a) Assuming Witt's assumptions were mostly valid and he is not mafia, DIT_grue could be trying to protect himself this round. There was never a clear majority against him though, so he wasn't in that much danger yet.
(b) Assuming Witt's assumptions were completely invalid (given potential mafia cooperation, not entirely unlikely) or that Witt is mafia, the mafia can try to use (a) to try to accuse DIT_grue.
(c) If Witt is not mafia, disproving Witt's claim sows suspicion against Witt.
(d) If Witt is mafia, disproving his own claim sows suspicion against him, but may make it sound as if he is being framed. See point (c).

Fourthly, looking at the votes, James voted Witt, gman and DIT_grue. gman voted James and Witt accused James (after correction). James voted gman first and got voted against in return; Witt and gman voted against each other at points. No obvious conclusions (or even far-fetched conclusions) here.

Fifthly, James believed someone and I are not mafia. Evidence in case a mafia doesn't want us excluded as targets for lynching, but since we currently aren't targets, it's unlikely. It draws minor attention to us though through the counterpoint of either someone or I killing James to potentially exclude ourselves as targets by making the two of us look as if we're being framed. Many, many levels of recursion here.

As said, my second point seems to be the most likely one.

Again, not going to vote for now.

Ristridin... Your reasoning is completely wrong.

Mafia's goal is to survive as long as possible, thus it is in their interest to avoid lynching an easy target (Witt) early, especially if the alternative is a no-lynch.
If I hadn't been V/LA with no way of knowing that there would suddenly been a deadline (and my raging at r_f) I would be looking at myself as scum for my interaction with Witt, same for JtF if he hadn't been NK'd.

Apart from that you can't assign motivations without knowing more, profiling a Mafia NK in this situation is hopeless unless you are both very good at Mafia (which I can say with certainty no one here is) and know the people involved, because there are so many possible motivations to kill just about anyone even without taking WIFOM or the fact that either scum or the mod might have used an rng into account.

Mafia are more likely to vote each other in low-risk scenarios, thus none of the initial votes exclude a Witt/voter scumteam.

In any case James didn't save Witt, random_fan did.

a) Wittgen's logic for voting DIT was terrible, James following him was not particularly important, I'll give you that DIT might have panicked.
b) Witt has voted for multiple people though and it takes more to lynch.
c) How does James getting NK'd disprove anything Witt said?
d) How does James getting NK'd disprove anything Witt said?

The fifth point is true, although there is no way to determine which it was. It is probable that James was killed because he got something right or because scum want us to think he got something right.

Not voting is the only correct course anyway, because lynching anyone this day would be stupid.

Always thought you had to vote in these kind of things.

unless you are both very good at Mafia (which I can say with certainty no one here is)

That's true, so I wouldn't mind some clarification on some of the points you mentioned. I seem to be looking at this from a completely different mindset.

Mafia's goal is to survive as long as possible, thus it is in their interest to avoid lynching an easy target (Witt) early, especially if the alternative is a no-lynch.

That sounds weird; wouldn't it be better to get some innocent lynched rather than getting nobody lynched in order to win more quickly?

profiling a Mafia NK in this situation is hopeless

I did say potential motivations, not all possible motivations. Though my conclusion that James likely got killed because he disproved himself to be mafia was apparently off, since at the very least one person disagrees with that analysis.

or the fact that either scum or the mod might have used an rng into account

Right, I should have mentioned that in my post somewhere.

Wittgen's logic for voting DIT was terrible

That depends on your definition of terrible. Given the stated premises (no mind games etc.), the logic was valid (i.e. given the premises, the conclusion logically follows). The premises however were bad (especially "Assuming they're not playing seriously enough to not play really badly but not so seriously as to do some game within a game silliness"), meaning the logic was not sound.

How does James getting NK'd disprove anything Witt said?

It proves that the logic was not sound (i.e. the conclusions were wrong), as if it was sound, James would have been mafia and therefore would not have been killed.

Not voting is the only correct course anyway, because lynching anyone this day would be stupid.

Yes. Lynch the wrong person and have the angel protect the wrong person, and it's game over.

Seriously are we allowed to not vote for a round? If so we should just skip to the next night phase.

So it seems pretty safe to call the day phase. I'll give twelve hours, or until a majority is reached, just in case.

@ristridin
I'm posting from an iPad because I'm not allowed to sit up atm so looking stuff up and quote editing is ridiculously annoying.

Maria's first goal is to survive to the end of the game, a no-lynch D1 forces a second no-lynch D2, which means one less community directed kill. This is far preferable to lynching an innocent because there aren't any associative tells with the dead people.
Say we'd have lynched James and the Mafia had NK'd whoever they'll kill now N1. We'd be in exactly the same position player wise, but we'd actually have an idea who to look for based on how they acted/voted during the D1 lynch.

James vote caused the no-lynch (although he couldn't really know that) that in itself was probably the most pro-scum thing that happened the entire game so far. Not knowing how the thing would have played out further is a problem because scum-scum could have been trying to save a partner while scum-town could have been an attempt to not be directly responsible for town!witt's death. Of course that was before James' death and town flip.

The entire premise of Witt's logic was 'I'm not mafia, therefore everyone who disagrees with me is mafia', followed by the assumption that mafia would want to immediately lynch him if he was town, thus anyone not voting him was probably town. For one, we don't know that he's town, thus that isn't a valid reason for any of us to not vote him, for two, scum could very well decide to defend a townie they think is going to be lynched anyway for the towncred.

I think the points being 'disproven' by James' death were already invalid anyway.

Ah, that seems to make sense in a way. Thanks for explaining.

Cooler heads quickly prevail for the town's residents and they decide they shouldn't kill anyone. They all go back to their houses in fear.

The night phase has begun.

The members of the town wake up glad to have survived the night, but dreading that the person killed was someone they liked. A town meeting is called to perform a roll call on the town and find out who didn't make it. It doesn't take long to find out it's Greybane, the new guy in town. The town starts trying to work out who the killers are.

The day phase has begun.

That's good I guess, I was going to try and get him lynched.

I'm just going to assume for now that scum!Ristridin wouldn't have talked so much D2 for fear of slipping up. Apart from that I have basically nothing.

Since we're in LYLO I'm going to 'completely arbitrarily' determine a claim order of:
Wittgen
DIT_grue
Someone
Gman
Ristridin

Any alignment confirming roles should probably instead of claiming themselves contact the people they know to be innocent and have that person claim that they were contacted by the cop/seer while the PR claims VT unless under threat of lynch.

Also, unless you're on a whole lot and feel like abusing the rules and gambling on being faster than r_f don't vote until we've decided who to lynch.

Just a note, I might be preoccupied this evening, so I may not respond in a timely manner (say in the next twenty-four hours). I hope that's not a problem. Since I'm apparently the last one to claim, it should probably be okay.

I'm gonna vote for Someone based on the whole being a tad rude and also super into mafia.

Pn the super into Mafia: Everything I've been saying so far is Mafia 101.

On the rudeness: I've been forced to stay in bed for more than a week now.... I'm slightly irritated.

I would like to point out though that, even if you think I'm scum, everything I've said so far is true, this includes the 'do not vote in LYLO until you've determined who to lynch'.

Try something like this: FoS Witt.

FoS?

Probably means he's recommending voting for me but not actually voting for me. Makes his intentions known without actually making a move that mafia could use.

Sorry to hear you've been stuck in bed. That sucks.

FoS?

It stands for 'finger of suspicion' basically what Witt said. It's meaning isn't relevant except to 'vote without voting'

Pn the super into Mafia: Everything I've been saying so far is Mafia 101.

I have to admit, I had to look up the terms you used to get some of your points. http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... reviations helps a bit.

Since I see no doctor claim from Witt here, I'm going to assume that he lied about that at the very least. I'll also FoS Witt for that.

How does this work by the way; if we have a majority FoS Witt, will we vote for him, or do we take more time to decide?

I would like to point out though that, even if you think I'm scum, everything I've said so far is true, this includes the 'do not vote in LYLO until you've determined who to lynch'.

This sounds like a very good idea for obvious reasons. Voting now pretty much says that you're either mafia, or that you are 100% certain that your target is; if neither is the case, you are risking the game here. Granted, the mafia would need to coordinate carefully to not give themselves away too soon, but it is risky.

Well I'm convinced enough to give a FoS too Witt

I have to admit, I haven't stopped glaring suspiciously at Wittgen since this started. That seemingly unshakeable tunnel-vision is actually the thing that has me most worried about whether I should be double-guessing myself.

Welp, you guys got me. My seemingly out of character way of not taking this game seriously was a clever ruse. You have to admit, though, that I was the best mafia ever.

... I think that would be a unanimous vote to lynch Witt if everyone voted in accordance with their latest post. (Not something I expected to see, and leaves me slightly boggled, but whatever.) Shall we just go ahead and do that then?

Wittgen

May as well, I lead an angry mob against Wittgen

Scumpartner decided that Witt was lost.

Or Witt is lying as town.

vote Witt

Btw, considering that there were 7 players to start we almost have to have 2 Power roles, scum can only kill one.