Bad Idea Mafia Redux! GAME OVER!

[Chuckie]

>_> sorry about that @frozen - consider that post as Kat chaneling the essence of Chuckie.

Also ninja'd and what is going on? Xonar explain =?

 

[adumbrodeus]

cops or bombs can't shoot. >>

That's the point.


Since he wasn't a shooter, he's either a bomb, a cop, an inheritor, or a tactician. Hopefully a tactician or an inheritor, but with 7 non-shooting roles, two of which are mafia, and the mode's a bomb... urgh



Hopefully he's scum, but we'll just have to wait for the flip.

 

[thedocsalive]

You know what, on second thought...


TDA had the right idea, we should institute it with the stipulation that anyone who doesn't follow it automatically gets shot.

... [snip]

What do you guys think, voting under penalty of death? Nobody shoots outside of voting unless voting would cause a no lynch or it's lylo with the inheritor in play. Wait an hour between hitting lynch total to hurt the strategy of piling on to seal a mislynch.


I think it's the best idea at the time.

Well, it's hard to seriously enforce/threaten something like that. It's prisoner's dilemma at its worst. For those of you who don't know and are too lazy to wiki, the basic concept is that people acting independently in their own best interests will get a sub-optimal result. If they work together, they can achieve a better result. But one party can deviate from this selfishly to get the best possible result while screwing over the other party(s) involved. Because neither party can punish or threaten the other for deviating, they both play selfishly, and achieve a suboptimal result.

It's not an exact comparison in retrospect, but it still relates well enough. We can propose/discuss/talk about/implement an informal voting system, and ideally this will help us get longer days, more information etc. However, we can't really threaten "punishment of death for not following the system" because that goes against our agenda as well. It kills someone who is 90% (or whatever) confirmed as town, so the threat isn't legitimate. Suppose we make this threat, and suppose someone deviates from the system and shoots before a "lynch vote." The next day comes, and we're obligated to kill someone who is 90% confirmed? Not likely to happen. We can't follow through on that threat.

Despite the above, I do still like voting, I think it will be at least as effective as it was on day one. That is to say, it will be at least somewhat helpful and better than the alternative of no voting system at all. Granted, there are other factors at play that made D1 our longest day (game mechanics discussions, etc.), but I think it could still help.

Xonar: Please post in twilight to give us some kind of explanation. The rules were clear on falsifying kills, and the role PMs were clear on who could kill and who could not.

 

[Rockin]

I'm pretty sure he did it cause Gheb was no longer playing.

Similar events happened you know. Look at the Tree Mafia game. He hydraed with a known player he likes and when he was inactive, he too was inactive and thus got modkilled (The hydra was Mafia btw)

 

[adumbrodeus]

@TDA


If town generally agrees to something, then only scum will disobey assuming they're playing to their win condition (and if a townie isn't playing to their win condition at this point, we might as well say "screw it" cause at this point a townie taking a quickshot without this framework means that the godfather gets to do the gambit nich pointed out and we lose anyway.




So I'm creating a plan that everyone has to follow and forcing everyone to follow it on the pain of being obvious scum BY IT'S NATURE makes it anti-town and scummy to not follow it, enough to justify a lynch. Sort of like how forcing everyone to follow (LaL) lynch all liers means that town has a major disincentive to lie.



So, in essence, if we do this we get a whole nother shot, and an action that would effectively defeat us will defeat us anyway.


The only exception would be if the player shoots scum, in that case it was almost definitely a stupid town move that resulted us hitting scum.



What's the downside to this?

 

[Chuckie]

I don't see what Xonar, as a scummie, would achieve by modkilling himself at this particular point in the game. But to be honest I also can't see what he would have achieved as any of the non-shooting roles.

Also @MetaK:-

McCloud, are you taking the game seriously, at all?
Or are you simply waiting until your cooldown period expires so you can shoot at willing again? Are you at all interested in actually participating in the conversational aspect of the game, or simply shooting randomly at a crowd?

This feels very much like a different tune you played in #475 - encouraging the "conversational aspect of the game" from another player intrigues me considering you weren't very keen on the conversations yesterDay despite them being very young. How would you have approached Day 3 had Xonar never quickshot? Who would you have looked into?

 

[M.K]

I don't see what Xonar, as a scummie, would achieve by modkilling himself at this particular point in the game. But to be honest I also can't see what he would have achieved as any of the non-shooting roles.

Also @MetaK:-This feels very much like a different tune you played in #475 - encouraging the "conversational aspect of the game" from another player intrigues me considering you weren't very keen on the conversations yesterDay despite them being very young. How would you have approached Day 3 had Xonar never quickshot? Who would you have looked into?

You know, I was contemplating that today as well.
I hate to suggest it, but after all the talk about Teemo being the Godfather and what not, it would have made sense for McCloud (as the Godfather) to shoot considering the majority of players were keen on the idea that shooters shouldn't be shot. It's a horrible idea that gets us in the same situation as before, which would eventually lead to the situation now, which gets us nowhere.
It's a different tune because I was considering the fact that Teemo might be scum at that point as well. Now that I see his flip (town) and McCloud's response to said flip, as lackadaisical as it was, I questioned his motives and his intent in this game. It's a reasonable question, seeing as how nonchalant McCloud was acting at the time.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Xonar is officially a moron. If this was my game, I'd blacklist him. Ugh. This is turning out EXACTLY LIKE the original Bad idea mafia. Xonar, you need to roleclaim and (if cop) give us a list of your investigation results. Also, please explain why anyone with any trace of even a microscopic brain would consider doing such a moronic thing like that.

 

[Overswarm]

If Xonar flips scum, someone shoot Rockin.

 

[thedocsalive]

@TDA


If town generally agrees to something, then only scum will disobey assuming they're playing to their win condition (and if a townie isn't playing to their win condition at this point, we might as well say "screw it" cause at this point a townie taking a quickshot without this framework means that the godfather gets to do the gambit nich pointed out and we lose anyway.




So I'm creating a plan that everyone has to follow and forcing everyone to follow it on the pain of being obvious scum BY IT'S NATURE makes it anti-town and scummy to not follow it, enough to justify a lynch. Sort of like how forcing everyone to follow (LaL) lynch all liers means that town has a major disincentive to lie.



So, in essence, if we do this we get a whole nother shot, and an action that would effectively defeat us will defeat us anyway.


The only exception would be if the player shoots scum, in that case it was almost definitely a stupid town move that resulted us hitting scum.



What's the downside to this?

The problem is that you claim disobeying is "anti-town and scummy...enough to justify a lynch." While quickshots/shots before lynch/whatever are blatantly anti-town, they're NOT necessarily scummy, due to the fact that the majority of actual shooters are townies. Think about it in terms of our actions on a day to day basis, not on the whole. We have to put ourselves in the best position to win possible after each day. Suppose we implement the system, and someone disobeys. This means we are obligated to kill off someone who has a high probability to be town. This action follows from their shot on the previous day. But killing the disobeyer would be a bad play in and of itself, and therefore it's a bad play, period!

Think about D1/D2 here. It's the same thing. Teemo shot early, it would have been better if he waited, but it still would have been bad play to instashoot/was bad play to quickshoot him D2. Our punishment is, by itself, not helpful, and therefore not a legit threat.

As I said, I'm all for voting/anything that helps us be organized, but we can't threaten to shoot quickshooters.

 

[M.K]

I'm honestly perplexed as to how to approach the voting situation. So let's say a substantial "bandwagon" of individuals "vote" to shoot a Player 1. However, let's say a person, on or off the bandwagon, shoots Player B for whatever reason. How do we approach this, and in what manner had the voting system preserved the integrity of the shot? Even if a bandwagon is taken to the shot, what is the best method to decide the shooter? For what purpose does voting serve other than a very blatant "I'm suspicious of you"? I'm all for it, don't get me wrong, but I see how easily the integrity of the voting system is crushed by even one eager player, and I feel there are too many in this game that simply disregard any type of "system" and shoot at mercy (see: McCloud, his past and current attitudes suggest that he's not able or willing to abide by a voting system).

 

[M.K]

Wow, Player 1 and Player B >_> I'm dumb. Player 2*

 

[adumbrodeus]

The problem is that you claim disobeying is "anti-town and scummy...enough to justify a lynch." While quickshots/shots before lynch/whatever are blatantly anti-town, they're NOT necessarily scummy, due to the fact that the majority of actual shooters are townies. Think about it in terms of our actions on a day to day basis, not on the whole. We have to put ourselves in the best position to win possible after each day. Suppose we implement the system, and someone disobeys. This means we are obligated to kill off someone who has a high probability to be town. This action follows from their shot on the previous day. But killing the disobeyer would be a bad play in and of itself, and therefore it's a bad play, period!

Think about D1/D2 here. It's the same thing. Teemo shot early, it would have been better if he waited, but it still would have been bad play to instashoot/was bad play to quickshoot him D2. Our punishment is, by itself, not helpful, and therefore not a legit threat.

As I said, I'm all for voting/anything that helps us be organized, but we can't threaten to shoot quickshooters.

You're missing the point.


Forcing everyone to obey the framework on the pain of death is a basic town strategy when there's an obvious optimal play and not following is inherently an extremely scummy action, by general agreement, we solidify it (which is exactly the same thing as what happened with LaL).



I see a number of very obvious advantages to this:

1. No more stupid quickshots that give town no information.

2. Godfather can't play the "quickshoot twice, let inheritor finish it off" gambit, giving us an entire extra shot effectively.




And at this point the only disadvantage you're giving me is that an action that woud ALREADY LOSE US THE GAME would now lose us the game even more unless he hits scum (in which case it would be waived depending on future actions, unless he shot the godfather of course).




So can you give me any concrete advantages to not doing it.

I'm honestly perplexed as to how to approach the voting situation. So let's say a substantial "bandwagon" of individuals "vote" to shoot a Player 1. However, let's say a person, on or off the bandwagon, shoots Player B for whatever reason. How do we approach this, and in what manner had the voting system preserved the integrity of the shot? Even if a bandwagon is taken to the shot, what is the best method to decide the shooter? For what purpose does voting serve other than a very blatant "I'm suspicious of you"? I'm all for it, don't get me wrong, but I see how easily the integrity of the voting system is crushed by even one eager player, and I feel there are too many in this game that simply disregard any type of "system" and shoot at mercy (see: McCloud, his past and current attitudes suggest that he's not able or willing to abide by a voting system).

If we tell them they're insta-scum if they disregard it then they've already lost us the game effectively.


If the godfather disregards it, at least we've caught scum.


But realistically nobody has an incentive to disregard it if we agree to it.

 

[M.K]

I can understand what you mean, adum. By claiming that disregarding the system is punishable by death, town would have no incentive to shoot off the vote. However, what happens at a stalemate situation? What if there are (hypothetically) 5 votes on Player 1, 5 votes on Player 2, and 3 Votes on Player 3? Does the system still work? Honestly, in the above situation, I can only see how it would pit town vs. town on the 2 bandwagons, while scum sits back.

 

[adumbrodeus]

In my proposal I suggested that this would be waived extremely close to the deadline, otherwise you've got the basic town issue of "you gotta make a case against scum", if we can't build enough scumslips to actually catch scum then we're sunk at this point anyway.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

This is called bad idea mafia

shooting as a bomb is a bad idea

 

[adumbrodeus]

urgh... Xonar, why?


So now we have 3 shots, unless we institute this voting system in this twilight with death as the penalty it's pretty much game. GF can shoot at a random time tomorrow and we won't know it him and then shoot as soon as his cooldown's over, then we have the remaining cooldown to kill the inheritor which is unlikely as hell without any reasonably long days.


If we institute this at least we're guaranteed one lynch that's the town's choice.



Assuming Xonar's not lying, which I admit is possible, but I doubt it at this point.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Just realized something, again assuming Xonar's not scum, we should "no lynch" tomorrow, we'll have an even number of players which means that we endgame at 4/4, no lynch means that it becomes 3/4, giving us a higher chance of catching scum between now and then especially with the random quickshot we might as well take before the inheritor gets around to shooting.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

What adum says man it was my plan all along

Oh and you guys better look at reactions wisely ~_~

 

[adumbrodeus]

Your actions didn't serve your wincon whatever it was. There's not much of a point in lying about your alignment now, but there was no point in shooting in the first place, so tbh I'm just not sure what's going through your head in the first place.



If you've got stuff to say, please say it, we'll just ignore it in the unlikely event that you flip scum.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm /team Kevin. I've kinda lost interest in the outcome of this game -_-;;

 

[Ronike]

You're kidding right Xonar? You lost all right to preach at all when you chose to kill yourself. Not only that, but you tell us to look at reactions and yet you refuse to care enough to give any of your own? You are worse than OS at his worst.

 

[adumbrodeus]

...

OS, if you feel like that, replace out (and have summoner come in... urg, this is feeling exactly like code geass), but I'd much prefer you stay in and help win this.


This is bad, I'll admit it, but if we manage to pull town's *** out of the fire this late in the game, gonna be all the sweeter.

 

[Nicholas1024]

That's it. Xonar, you are now blacklisted from any future games I might host, and I encourage everyone else here to do the same. I mean, SERIOUSLY?

 

[thedocsalive]

You're missing the point.

Forcing everyone to obey the framework on the pain of death is a basic town strategy when there's an obvious optimal play and not following is inherently an extremely scummy action, by general agreement, we solidify it (which is exactly the same thing as what happened with LaL).

I see a number of very obvious advantages to this:

1. No more stupid quickshots that give town no information.

2. Godfather can't play the "quickshoot twice, let inheritor finish it off" gambit, giving us an entire extra shot effectively.

And at this point the only disadvantage you're giving me is that an action that woud ALREADY LOSE US THE GAME would now lose us the game even more unless he hits scum (in which case it would be waived depending on future actions, unless he shot the godfather of course).

So can you give me any concrete advantages to not doing it.

The biggest point that I failed to acknowledge is the impossibility of the GF gambit. That is a strong plus for this.

Consider the consequences of someone disobeying assuming we employ this system.

So let's suppose Xonar is a bomb as he said. His modkill+explosion+NK = 12 people left D4, 3 scum. Suppose someone decides to be a jack*** and shoot someone quickly. Let's say they shoot a townie, for simplicity. After the next NK, we're down to 10 on day 5, 3 scum. Punishing the person brings us down to 8 after the next NK, which would be mylo in a normal game, and that's assuming no further bomb day-deaths. So yes, one of my arguments is that your system makes a bad situation worse. I'd much rather have 10 alive and be yelling at someone for a stupid shot than 8 alive but a strong sense of principle. Ideally the threat of punishment makes such a situation very unlikely. Ideally such a situation should be unlikely anyway, but clearly people aren't all on the same page this game.

So do we want to eliminate the GF gambit and make a bad scenario less likely, at the cost of making that bad scenario nearly unwinnable (or requiring perfect town play to win, glass half empty/full)? Maybe that's still an oversimplification or I'm still missing something, but it seems to me that that's what it comes down to.

I think we could still benefit strongly from just using voting (remember D1, Chaco had 6 votes with 10 to lynch and pressure from others, so it wasn't that bad of a day-ender, especially compared to D2 and D3 lol). But if everyone's on board with adum's concept of punishment, I'll throw game theory to the wind and go for it too.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I like the idea for future BIM games. However, this game I'm not sure about it yet. Supposing we do this... what about Mccloud? Do we shoot him for his D2 quickshot, or do we let him off?

 

[adumbrodeus]

The system wasn't in place (at least not with punitive action) when McCloud quickshot. Unless he does something legit scummy of course.



@TDA As far as the scenario, in that case the godfather is doing one quickshot and is still the obvious godfather. In both scenarios we're dealing with a crapshoot to catch the inheritor before his cooldown wears off, so basically same situation.

 

[KevinM]

No, we do not shoot Mccloud for his D2 action.

Stop trigger fingering this.

No if he flips town we insta shoot rockin.

Stop the

If ____ then ______ statements, they are not helpful in a game like this. You guys are playing this all wrong, and town is going to lose because of it.

Losing a bomb is the worst thing possible.

Xonar do you know if you take out another townie with you when you die?

If so you have royally screwed us over, and you barely baited any reactions.

I dislike the way Nick reacted there, seemed to be trying to sell it a little to hard.

 

[Nicholas1024]

KevinM, people have different reactions to this sort of thing. Mine is one more of anger than of depression. Anyway, I don't like the "Insta shoot rockin" stuff. Sure, I'm not sold on Rockin's towniness, but this insta-shot stuff lost us the original BIM, and are going to lose us this one. As a member of the first game (who in fact lost us said game with his quickshot), you should know this!

 

[Ronike]

Im pretty sure kevin meant "No, dont insta shoot rockin", read it in context with the rest of his post. You really do seem pretty scummy mate, at least pretend to be readin.

 

[Rockin]

I'll have to look at Adum's proposal system again. It seems alright, even though I'm against the voting system in this game as a whole (only cause I FELT we could just agree/disagree as a group).

I'm unsure as to why OS finds me scummy. So far, his only two reasons is that 1) I talk a lot in this game (which I felt I'm talking a normal/usual game here. There are some games where I hardly talked D1 due to me not knowing how to contribute and there's 2) the 'inside joke' thing, which really isn't a case at all IMO.

 

[McCloud]

It's cause the way you reacted was different than what you were saying yesterday. It seemed forced and over the top.

Anyway, yeah, no insta shooting me pl0x ;D

 

[Rockin]

It's cause the way you reacted was different than what you were saying yesterday. It seemed forced and over the top.

Anyway, yeah, no insta shooting me pl0x ;D

I dunno about that.

I still feel like before, I have no problem with Teemo shot. Guess the only thing that was different is that I spoke more of my thoughts, which isn't as different as from my last few posts in D1 of this game (which was I told a bit of something I wanted to share, then elaborated/questioned more at the beginning of D2. To me, it's the same thing I'm doing here from the twilight area of D2 to D3).

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Xonar, Bomb has been modkilled!

He explodes! McCloud, Townie has been killed randomly by the explosion!

It is now Night 3, send in night actions!

This post will be updated later with the Day 4 start time.

 

[McCloud]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

least I'm not teh godfather. Good luck, guys!

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Day 4 begins.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Ronike, Townie has been brutally murdered!

Day 4 Begins!

There are no active cooldowns.

 

[Overswarm]

1.) Rockin
2.) Mentosman8
3.) Omnididdle (Omni/Riddle Hydra) [Townie, Murdered N1]
4.) KevinM
5.) Chibo
6.) Teemo (Tom/EE Hydra) [Townie, Shot D2]
7.) Nicholas1024
8.) Gheb_01 [Townie, Murdered N2]
9.) Chacotaco [Townie, Shot D1]
10.) Xonar [Bomb, Modkilled D3]
11.) Adumbrodeus
12.) Overswarm
13.) Thedocsalive
14.) Chuckie (Vanderzant/Kataefi Hydra)
15.) Ronike
16.) Meta-Kirby
17.) McCloud [Townie, Shrapnel'd D3]
18.) Ligolski
19.) EauxLune


for reference

 

[CT Chia]

I still don't understand why Xonar would do that... Did I miss something or is he just being stupid?

 

[Rockin]

I still don't understand why Xonar would do that... Did I miss something or is he just being stupid?

Like I said before.

If they're both town and Gheb dies, he would be no longer interested.

It's stupid, I know.