Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

House Targaryen

Mafia 57: The stowaways

Recommended Posts

It is day 1.

13 players remain: Botley, Drumm, Farwynd, Goodbrother, Harlaw, Kenning, Merlyn, Myre, Orkwood, Saltcliffe, Stonetree, Volmark, Wynch.

7 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night.

3 votes for Orkwood ( Myre, Wynch, Botley)
3 votes for Wynch ( Drumm, Orkwood, Merlyn)
1 vote for Botley ( Goodbrother)
1 vote for Kenning ( Stonetree)
1 vote for Saltcliffe ( Kenning)
1 vote for Stonetree ( Saltcliffe)

3 players have not voted: Farwynd, Harlaw, Volmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Stonetree' post='1517663' date='Sep 14 2008, 15.06']Informations are always valueable. Someone could have proposed a good idea, someone could have had a bad idea, some others could have said nothing. The third reaction is unsurprisingly the most interesting.[/quote]
You didn't ask for ideas. You asked opinions on whether there are friends in this game or not. I suppose you know that it's considered a bad idea on this forum to discuss innocent roles, and that you weren't likely to get many answers. Even if you didn't know that, I still have trouble understanding how the other players' opinions could have provided you with valuable information about themselves, or somehow changed your plan, because you were ready to lay it out on D1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harlaw, I need you to clarify some things for me here:
[quote name='House Harlaw' post='1517657' date='Sep 14 2008, 14.54']Sorry for long absence.

I was dithering between the Wynch and Orkwood cases as I read them. I prefer the Orkwood case to the Wynch one; I'm inclined to think that Wynch's actions were just badly thought out. It surprises me that I find Wynch more believable; Orkwood seems more innocent than Wynch - Wynch's actions can be indicative of an evil making a booboo, especially an inexperienced evil.[/quote]
You prefer the Orkwood case and you think Wynch is more believable (?? I think this is positive for him, meaning innocent looking). However, you think Orkwood seems more innocent and that Wynch looks like an inexperienced evil. I am not following your train of thought here.
[quote name='House Harlaw' post='1517657' date='Sep 14 2008, 14.54']I think Botley and Stonetree are linked. Maybe Botley as a symp to Stonetree. Botley went after Saltcliffe pretty hard after Saltcliffe picked Stoney to vote for.[/quote]
Ok, so Botley is connected to Stonetree because he went after Saltcliffe.
[quote name='House Harlaw' post='1517657' date='Sep 14 2008, 14.54']In any case, Kenning is after Saltcliffe, who already has a vote, so Wynch as a compromise may not be needed. As Kenning agrees with Stonetree (subtly) and Botley, who I already am wondering about, it hardly endears me to Kenning.[/quote]
Why, in your opinion, isn't Kenning connected to Stonetree because of his attacks on Saltcliffe?
[quote name='House Harlaw' post='1517657' date='Sep 14 2008, 14.54']I'm not entirely happy with Saltcliffe myself though. I myself don't really mind lists at any point, though they can obviously be evils throwing the scent. But I wouldn't vote at that stage on day 1 based mainly on a list.[/quote]
By the end here, I don't really understand what you are thinking in terms of who really is suspicious. Most of all though, you seem to be interested in discrediting anyone that has been attacking Saltcliffe. What do you think of Saltcliffe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, [b]Wynch[/b]. Salty conveniently disappeared, and the list thing I still expect him to explain, since it's the only thing bothering me about him, but it's pretty big. I have re-read Ork and have absolutely no intention of lynching him today.

Should be back before the limit, but the vote is just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Stonetree' post='1517640' date='Sep 14 2008, 14.31']Not that I am following your ideas, but this post has been a promising start. Is there a reason why you're against reducing the suspect pool?[/quote]I'm not against reducing the suspect pool. I want a lynch. If I was agasinst reducing the pool I'd vote for night.

Let's look at [i]The List[/i].
[quote]This has nothing to do with experience, but with the intention behind the un-voting and re-voting thing. It doesn't make sense for neither an experienced nor an inexperienced badass, but it makes sense for someone who acted genuinely.

The only argument against Wynch that I can see is that we have two evil teams, so he might have noticed that lynching someone increases his chances to win the game after all, which made him vote for Merlyn again. The chance that this is what happened is small though.[/quote]This is the pre-list commentary. Which I agree with, btw.

Beginning of [i]The List[/i]:
[quote]Drumm did have an easy time so far. Kenning to, but we can stake only one player today. Both acted a bit too opportunistic so far.[/quote]You claim Drumm and Kenning are opportunistic. Please back this up. If you are going to comment on players, we need to know what you are referencing.

Now I will assume you mean Drumm and Kenning are opportunistic by being 1 and 2 on the Wynch mob. If that is true, why wasn't Orkwood included in the list?

[quote]Wynch and Volmark (based on post 43 alone ) are top on my innocent list, but Myre is only close behind. Just a little hint for those non-pirates that would like to target someone of the other team.[/quote]By "innocent", I will assume you mean most likely to be innocent. You mention Wynch (whom you referenced in your pre-list commentary) along with Volmark and Myre. Why do you think Volmark and Myre innocent? You offer nothing to back this up. Post 43 certainly doesn't clear Volmark of anything.

[quote]Merlyn, however, sounds like someone who desperatly tries to be on scene (post 45 is a good example).[/quote]Post 45 is Harlaw. You once again gave commentary with no evidence to back it up.

[quote]Harlaw has been very quiet.

Goodbrother has been very quiet. He also looks like Greyjoy (dunno if that's good or bad).[/quote]Now tell us something we don't know. Tell us what you think and why.

Why isn't everyone on your list? When we make suspect lists, we mention everybody. Even if we put them in a middle tier with a note that says, "I don't know what to think about these guys." Botley, Farwynd, Myre, Orkwood, and Saltcliffe all aren't mentioned. What do you think of them? Why do you think that.

Throughout the course of the list, you have explained why one person might be innocent: Wynch. You have called no one guilty, only cast mild suspcion on 3 players: Kenning, Drumm, and Merlyn, and ignored around a third of the players.

For all the other players saying, "Why don't you like lists? Oh, his list is so helpful! It puts in black and white what he thinks!" Let me say it again.

1. Lists are fine.
2. Lists that use a lot of words to say nothing are not.
3. A popular FM tactic is to make posts that look like they are adding to the general conversation and being helpful, when in reality they aren't.
4. Stonetree's list uses a lot of words but doesn't say much at all. If he was FM and his partner was Volmark or Myre, he just cleared them (without anyone - but me - calling him on it) without having to say why.

Combined with the "do you think we have friends" post, and I find Stoney suspicious.

I have to go to work. I will be back in time for end of day, and I'll change my vote if needed at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Kenning' post='1517702' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.36']Anyway, [b]Wynch[/b]. Salty conveniently disappeared, and the list thing I still expect him to explain, since it's the only thing bothering me about him, but it's pretty big. I have re-read Ork and have absolutely no intention of lynching him today.

Should be back before the limit, but the vote is just in case.[/quote]
What's there to really explain about the list? I mean, he said pretty much all there was to say back when he first put down the vote.

[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1517515' date='Sep 14 2008, 19.05']I don't like lists at this point in a game. It strikes me as a move by a baddie to post something helpful.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Kenning' post='1517681' date='Sep 14 2008, 21.17']You didn't ask for ideas. You asked opinions on whether there are friends in this game or not. I suppose you know that it's considered a bad idea on this forum to discuss innocent roles, and that you weren't likely to get many answers. Even if you didn't know that, I still have trouble understanding how the other players' opinions could have provided you with valuable information about themselves, or somehow changed your plan, because you were ready to lay it out on D1.[/quote]
Now that you bring it up, I have to say, I didnt like his post at all too.
Why asking about the existence of an innocent role? maybe trying to
observe the people's reactions? To guess who are linked with each other?

What would he gain from that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1517705' date='Sep 14 2008, 15.38']I'm not against reducing the suspect pool. I want a lynch. If I was agasinst reducing the pool I'd vote for night.

Let's look at [i]The List[/i].
This is the pre-list commentary. Which I agree with, btw.

Beginning of [i]The List[/i]:
You claim Drumm and Kenning are opportunistic. Please back this up. If you are going to comment on players, we need to know what you are referencing.

Now I will assume you mean Drumm and Kenning are opportunistic by being 1 and 2 on the Wynch mob. If that is true, why wasn't Orkwood included in the list?

By "innocent", I will assume you mean most likely to be innocent. You mention Wynch (whom you referenced in your pre-list commentary) along with Volmark and Myre. Why do you think Volmark and Myre innocent? You offer nothing to back this up. Post 43 certainly doesn't clear Volmark of anything.

Post 45 is Harlaw. You once again gave commentary with no evidence to back it up.

Now tell us something we don't know. Tell us what you think and why.

Why isn't everyone on your list? When we make suspect lists, we mention everybody. Even if we put them in a middle tier with a note that says, "I don't know what to think about these guys." Botley, Farwynd, Myre, Orkwood, and Saltcliffe all aren't mentioned. What do you think of them? Why do you think that.

Throughout the course of the list, you have explained why one person might be innocent: Wynch. You have called no one guilty, only cast mild suspcion on 3 players: Kenning, Drumm, and Merlyn, and ignored around a third of the players.

For all the other players saying, "Why don't you like lists? Oh, his list is so helpful! It puts in black and white what he thinks!" Let me say it again.

1. Lists are fine.
2. Lists that use a lot of words to say nothing are not.
3. A popular FM tactic is to make posts that look like they are adding to the general conversation and being helpful, when in reality they aren't.
4. Stonetree's list uses a lot of words but doesn't say much at all. If he was FM and his partner was Volmark or Myre, he just cleared them (without anyone - but me - calling him on it) without having to say why.

Combined with the "do you think we have friends" post, and I find Stoney suspicious.

I have to go to work. I will be back in time for end of day, and I'll change my vote if needed at that time.[/quote]
Thank you. I am satisfied with this explanation. It certainly took long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Kenning' post='1517681' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.17']You didn't ask for ideas. You asked opinions on whether there are friends in this game or not. I suppose you know that it's considered a bad idea on this forum to discuss innocent roles, and that you weren't likely to get many answers. Even if you didn't know that, I still have trouble understanding how the other players' opinions could have provided you with valuable information about themselves, or somehow changed your plan, because you were ready to lay it out on D1.[/quote]

Well, since there are only three possible combinations of innocent roles, in this special case a discussion about them is not harmful at all, at least for the innocents.


[u]
Let's have a look:
[/u]


1) There is a pair of friends and no lonely wolf


2) There is no pair of friends, but a lonely wolf


3) There is a pair of friends and a lonely wolf



Since the LW looks like a really awesome role, we can forget option 1). Option 2) is also unlikely, since the LW is only able to act on odd or even nights. The innocents would be at an disadvantage in that scenario. That's why option 3) is far the likeliest. That's basic game balancing and should be obvious to every player with some experience.


Working under the assumption that we have both a LW and a pair of friends, the innocents can improve their chances of winning. One of the friends should therefore reveal on day 1. If he reveals on day 2, the LW has most likely used his power already and is not able to protect the revealed friend, so they have to wait for day 3 to reveal. On day 3 there is a good chance that one of the friends or the LW is dead already, so we most likely gain less from revealing as on day 1.



The plan is simple:

One of the friends reveals, and the LW heals him on night 1. We get a CI for both day 1 and 2. After night 2 the friend will die though. If we are lucky, we can do the same thing on day 3 and 4 with the second friend. Pursuing that strategy, we might even block a kill or two.

Even if I am wrong and there is no LW, the threat of a healer will most likely safe the life of a revealed friend, at least on night 1.

Finally, if there is no friend reveal we can safely assume that there is an innocent LW, but no evil LW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Drumm' post='1517706' date='Sep 14 2008, 15.39']What's there to really explain about the list? I mean, he said pretty much all there was to say back when he first put down the vote.[/quote]
That wasn't nearly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Kenning' post='1517667' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.10']Harlaw, am I your No 1 suspect or what? You were awfully unclear, or should I say wishy-washy about it?[/quote]

I hadn't ranked them as such, but I suppose you're second behind Orkwood, then Stonetree/Botley/Wynch/Salticliffe about the same.

[quote name='House Volmark' post='1517699' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.34']You prefer the Orkwood case and you think Wynch is more believable (?? I think this is positive for him, meaning innocent looking). However, you think Orkwood seems more innocent and that Wynch looks like an inexperienced evil. I am not following your train of thought here.[/quote]

I know that's sort of hard-to-follow. I think Orkwood is playing more like someone innocent than Wynch is - witness the whole unvote/revote by Wynch, which basically dropped him in it. However I think that Orkwood is more likely to be evil than Wynch, and I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Wynch's actions not being evil, where I'm not for Orwkood.

[quote name='House Volmark' post='1517699' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.34']Ok, so Botley is connected to Stonetree because he went after Saltcliffe.

Why, in your opinion, isn't Kenning connected to Stonetree because of his attacks on Saltcliffe?

By the end here, I don't really understand what you are thinking in terms of who really is suspicious. Most of all though, you seem to be interested in discrediting anyone that has been attacking Saltcliffe. What do you think of Saltcliffe?[/quote]

I understand Saltcliffe's reason for being against the list, but I don't approve of using it for a vote at this early stage, as I've said. Saltcliffe's argument that an evil could be trying to appear helpful is feasible, yes, but it could also be too obvious. It (the list) is similar to Wynch's actions in that it [i]could[/i] be evil play, or it could be genuine. I think halfway through day 1 is too early to use the list as an example of evil play, so I don't approve of the vote itself.

However, Saltcliffe also prefers Orkwood to Wynch, which I do, so I agree with him there.

I didn't like the way Botley went after Saltcliffe after Saltcliffe dissed the lists.

Kenning could be connected to Stonetree; he subtly distances ("not 100% sure of Stoney" or words to that effect) whilst at the same time broadly agreeing with him. I suspect Kenning more than Botley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Kenning' post='1517720' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.45']That wasn't nearly enough.[/quote]
To each their own.

[quote name='House Stonetree' post='1517716' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.44']The plan is simple:[/quote]
The plan is also more likely to just have us waste our heals imo. That being said, if we have friends, they're welcome to reveal whenever they want. It's a small game. Two CI's would be pretty handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1517705' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.38']I'm not against reducing the suspect pool. I want a lynch. If I was agasinst reducing the pool I'd vote for night.

Let's look at [i]The List[/i].
This is the pre-list commentary. Which I agree with, btw.

Beginning of [i]The List[/i]:
You claim Drumm and Kenning are opportunistic. Please back this up. If you are going to comment on players, we need to know what you are referencing.

Now I will assume you mean Drumm and Kenning are opportunistic by being 1 and 2 on the Wynch mob. If that is true, why wasn't Orkwood included in the list?

By "innocent", I will assume you mean most likely to be innocent. You mention Wynch (whom you referenced in your pre-list commentary) along with Volmark and Myre. Why do you think Volmark and Myre innocent? You offer nothing to back this up. Post 43 certainly doesn't clear Volmark of anything.

Post 45 is Harlaw. You once again gave commentary with no evidence to back it up.

Now tell us something we don't know. Tell us what you think and why.

Why isn't everyone on your list? When we make suspect lists, we mention everybody. Even if we put them in a middle tier with a note that says, "I don't know what to think about these guys." Botley, Farwynd, Myre, Orkwood, and Saltcliffe all aren't mentioned. What do you think of them? Why do you think that.

Throughout the course of the list, you have explained why one person might be innocent: Wynch. You have called no one guilty, only cast mild suspcion on 3 players: Kenning, Drumm, and Merlyn, and ignored around a third of the players.

For all the other players saying, "Why don't you like lists? Oh, his list is so helpful! It puts in black and white what he thinks!" Let me say it again.

1. Lists are fine.
2. Lists that use a lot of words to say nothing are not.
3. A popular FM tactic is to make posts that look like they are adding to the general conversation and being helpful, when in reality they aren't.
4. Stonetree's list uses a lot of words but doesn't say much at all. If he was FM and his partner was Volmark or Myre, he just cleared them (without anyone - but me - calling him on it) without having to say why.

Combined with the "do you think we have friends" post, and I find Stoney suspicious.

I have to go to work. I will be back in time for end of day, and I'll change my vote if needed at that time.[/quote]

This theory would be fine in a vanilla game, but since we have two FM teams out there, it doesn't fit with the challenge that the FM have to master in a three-faction-game. Hence Saltcliff's theory is wrong from A to Z. Self-committement on day 1 is rarely found amongst FM when they have to fear a shot by the other team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now Botley is satisfied with Saltcliffe and Kenning is after Stoney, both of which go against the grain of my thinking so far.

And I don't like Stonetree's endless speculation of innocent roles in post 129.

Fact is, the innocents could end up screwed either way because of that plan, since it neatly brings together all the options of roles and revealing. Yes, it's helpful to innocents.
And. If there was a dim FM, boy has their game been helped out.

In fact, I'll vote [b]Stonetree[/b]. Too much speculation is not only irritating, it's harmful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1517705' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.38']Post 45 is Harlaw. You once again gave commentary with no evidence to back it up.[/quote]

You are right, I meant post [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=30858&view=findpost&p=1517203"]47[/url].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Harlaw' post='1517724' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.56']And now Botley is satisfied with Saltcliffe and Kenning is after Stoney, both of which go against the grain of my thinking so far.

And I don't like Stonetree's endless speculation of innocent roles in post 129.

Fact is, the innocents could end up screwed either way because of that plan, since it neatly brings together all the options of roles and revealing. Yes, it's helpful to innocents.
And. If there was a dim FM, boy has their game been helped out.

In fact, I'll vote [b]Stonetree[/b]. Too much speculation is not only irritating, it's harmful.[/quote]
Assuming we lynch an innocent today, the chance that one of the friends gets killed on night 1 is

1 - 10/12 * 10/12

~ 30 percent


That does not include that we might accidently lynch a friend or force him to reveal by almost lynching him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we get no friend reveal today I suggest the LW should do the following (so listen closely):


DON'T HEAL ANYONE BUT YOURSELF!

In the worst case, you safe a Vampire being stabbed by a Nina or vice versa.


better:


INVESTIGATE A PLAYER!

If he comes up roled, he is a killer (since there are no friends).

If he comes up roleless, you have a CI that you can HEAL ON NIGHT 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case that we have a friend reveal, the LW should do one of the following two things:


1) HEAL THE FRIEND

it's always good to have a CI around


2) INVESTIGATE A PLAYER

most likely the FM won't target the friend, so you can use your time by CIing* another player or finding a guilty one


*almost, since there is still another roled innocent player out there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Harlaw' post='1517724' date='Sep 14 2008, 22.56']And now Botley is satisfied with Saltcliffe and Kenning is after Stoney, both of which go against the grain of my thinking so far.

And I don't like Stonetree's endless speculation of innocent roles in post 129.

Fact is, the innocents could end up screwed either way because of that plan, since it neatly brings together all the options of roles and revealing. Yes, it's helpful to innocents.
And. If there was a dim FM, boy has their game been helped out.

In fact, I'll vote [b]Stonetree[/b]. Too much speculation is not only irritating, it's harmful.[/quote]

Stereotypical FM response when it comes to reducing the suspect pool.

[b]Harlaw[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is day 1.

13 players remain: Botley, Drumm, Farwynd, Goodbrother, Harlaw, Kenning, Merlyn, Myre, Orkwood, Saltcliffe, Stonetree, Volmark, Wynch.

7 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night.

3 votes for Orkwood ( Myre, Wynch, Botley)
3 votes for Wynch ( Drumm, Orkwood, Kenning)
2 votes for Stonetree ( Saltcliffe, Harlaw)
1 vote for Botley ( Goodbrother)
1 vote for Goodbrother ( Merlyn)
1 vote for Harlaw ( Stonetree)

2 players have not voted: Farwynd, Volmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×