MAFIA: Sanctuary - FINISHED

[Krazy]

@ Krazy: Why does Lav's aggression clear him in your eyes?

I wouldn't say it "clears" him, but in phantom games usually the earliest aggressors are town not mafia.  Still, it might not hold true for forum based games so right now it's only just an impression.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Krazy: Why does Lav's aggression clear him in your eyes?

I wouldn't say it "clears" him, but in phantom games usually the earliest aggressors are town not mafia.  Still, it might not hold true for forum based games so right now it's only just an impression.

You might want to lose that view. Aggression is typically part of a person's playstyle, and that usually has nothing to do with alignment.

And Lav, the issue was more with me not understanding the way you phrased the post, not the content itself. I agree with you that throwing out Milldawg as a candidate for innocence is peculiar. At the same time, I don't think AA7's personality would be inclined to throw a newer player out of the game on the first night.

[Krazy]

You might want to lose that view. Aggression is typically part of a person's playstyle, and that usually has nothing to do with alignment.

And Lav, the issue was more with me not understanding the way you phrased the post, not the content itself. I agree with you that throwing out Milldawg as a candidate for innocence is peculiar. At the same time, I don't think AA7's personality would be inclined to throw a newer player out of the game on the first night.

Probably true, but it seems like certain patterns emerge a lot.  It's almost a rule of thumb that in a game of phantom, for instance, that the phantom will wait for the first person to get attacked, and then defend that player.  That way they guarantee one ally (the person they save) and have a justifiable cause for killing a player (they attacked first).  Strategically, it makes more sense for the mafia to try to ally with other people by defending them against accusations than it does to make direct accusations themselves.

[Lavarinth]

@ Krazy: Why does Lav's aggression clear him in your eyes?

I wouldn't say it "clears" him, but in phantom games usually the earliest aggressors are town not mafia.  Still, it might not hold true for forum based games so right now it's only just an impression.

You might want to lose that view. Aggression is typically part of a person's playstyle, and that usually has nothing to do with alignment.

And Lav, the issue was more with me not understanding the way you phrased the post, not the content itself. I agree with you that throwing out Milldawg as a candidate for innocence is peculiar. At the same time, I don't think AA7's personality would be inclined to throw a newer player out of the game on the first night.

The perfect way to fool us all.

[SaintKerrigan]

You might want to lose that view. Aggression is typically part of a person's playstyle, and that usually has nothing to do with alignment.

And Lav, the issue was more with me not understanding the way you phrased the post, not the content itself. I agree with you that throwing out Milldawg as a candidate for innocence is peculiar. At the same time, I don't think AA7's personality would be inclined to throw a newer player out of the game on the first night.

Probably true, but it seems like certain patterns emerge a lot.  It's almost a rule of thumb that in a game of phantom, for instance, that the phantom will wait for the first person to get attacked, and then defend that player.  That way they guarantee one ally (the person they save) and have a justifiable cause for killing a player (they attacked first).  Strategically, it makes more sense for the mafia to try to ally with other people by defending them against accusations than it does to make direct accusations themselves.

You can believe that if you want. I'm just giving you advice as a player that has played my fair share of Mafia games and seen plenty of things.

[AA7Dragoon]

Lavarinth, the only reason why I've mentioned Milldawg so far is because that's all I have to go off of.  He is the default Overlord, and this game is his baby.  It's a hunch that an Overlord wants less experienced players to enjoy their games over the ones who have done it time and time again.

What I find suspicious is in an earlier post you were disappointed I didn't include you in this innocent list.  Now, you're going after me because I even had one.  Which do you prefer?  That I assume only you innocent and am suspicious if I consider others so?

With the roles randomized, and the alignments, anyone can be guilty here.  Between mAc and Milldawg, there is no preference to roles here.  At this time, I am not sure who could be guilty.  There's a lot going on behind the scenes, but very little is being revealed to us.  I'm not sure what to think of our newer players.  One of them could be evil.  It's hard to grasp much information out of Aiursage's posting for example.  There's not much there, and little precedent to go by.

[Lavarinth]

Lavarinth, the only reason why I've mentioned Milldawg so far is because that's all I have to go off of.  He is the default Overlord, and this game is his baby.  It's a hunch that an Overlord wants less experienced players to enjoy their games over the ones who have done it time and time again.

What I find suspicious is in an earlier post you were disappointed I didn't include you in this innocent list.  Now, you're going after me because I even had one.  Which do you prefer?  That I assume only you innocent and am suspicious if I consider others so?

With the roles randomized, and the alignments, anyone can be guilty here.  Between mAc and Milldawg, there is no preference to roles here.  At this time, I am not sure who could be guilty.  There's a lot going on behind the scenes, but very little is being revealed to us.  I'm not sure what to think of our newer players.  One of them could be evil.  It's hard to grasp much information out of Aiursage's posting for example.  There's not much there, and little precedent to go by.

I've bolded your two contradicting statements, AA7. You say he wants less experienced players to enjoy the game, yet roles are randomized? Explain that. You're basically telling me Milldawg would not assign players such as myself, yourself, himself, Thalraxal, or Murdermasterx/Oopy to be 'guilty' because we're more experienced and could plan this to the point it's not an joyful experience for the newcomers? Then why was Dread eliminated? I'm sure he was by far "less of a threat" since he's "new," right?

I'm not understanding what you're telling me. You later state one of them could be evil? Could be?! Of course they could be! Rolls are random, right? Oh- That's right, apparently you believe they're not as random as rolling some dice since you believe only certain people are assigned certain rolls to make the game fair. Which, personally, if that were true, I'd never make you a guilty player since you'd probably cry guilty out of your eyes. And I think I see a tear of it already.

Yes, I'm quite the aggressive player this time.

[Thalraxal]

@AA7: I'd like to remind you, that we're not playing against mAc and his sorting algorithm of not-really-very-random-at-all.  Using that kind of a metagame to "deduce" who's guilty or innocent isn't going to get us anywhere we want to be.  If you really want to play that game, you can, but it's nowhere near as interesting as the real one is.

[Milldawg]

First of all, LET THE RECORD SHOW that the roles are totally randomized. There was no conscious choice on the part of me or mAc who would be what role or alignment.

However, I don't think that's what AA7 is actually saying - but I'll let him answer, of course. I'm also interested in his responses since he's making some very interesting statements. I don't want to comment on them, though, until he clarifies what exactly he meant.

You're definitely being aggressive, Lavarinth, that's good. The more pressure we put on each other, the more the mafia squirm. Just be careful not to get carried away.

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Thalraxal: Why can't we apply metagaming here? Isn't it just another way to try and deduce how you think a player would likely act? True, Krazy and Aiurs have not been a part of these games before, but unless I'm missing someone I think everyone else that is alive has played with each other before. Why not use meta as an aid in our investigations?

@ Lav: I don't see what you're getting at re: AA7's statement. Sure, Milldawg would like players to enjoy his games. That does not mean he will influence who gets a certain role or alignment. In fact, he hasn't even been involved in those kind of decisions, as mAc is the moderator for this game.

Preview Edit: Milldawg has addressed his side of things, but I'll let my remark stand anyway.

[Thalraxal]

@SK: There's two types of metagaming in Mafia.  The good kind is using your knowledge of a player's style and personality to help figure out if they're guilty or innocent ("AA7 probably wouldn't kill a person like Dread on the first night, so he's probably innocent" or "Guilty-Thalraxal is prone to running away and hiding when questioned" for example).  The bad kind is trying to figure out who's guilty based on who you think the gamemaster would have chosen.  AA7 used the second kind as the basis for his belief that Milldawg is likely not guilty.  The fact is, mAc and Milldawg could have used any method to choose who's innocent or guilty (Milldawg says roles were random and not mAc-random, putting AA7's justification for his theory on even shakier grounds).  The second kind of metagaming leads to you playing against the gamemaster and not the other players.  Or, even worse, leading to you making some very bad assumptions (the "mAc is playing ergo he must be evil LYNCH HIM NOW!!!111" is a good example of that). 

While the first type can give you an edge, the second type will almost always backfire and lead you in the wrong direction.

[Aiursrage2k]

@SK: There's two types of metagaming in Mafia.  The good kind is using your knowledge of a player's style and personality to help figure out if they're guilty or innocent ("AA7 probably wouldn't kill a person like Dread on the first night, so he's probably innocent" or "Guilty-Thalraxal is prone to running away and hiding when questioned" for example).  The bad kind is trying to figure out who's guilty based on who you think the gamemaster would have chosen.  AA7 used the second kind as the basis for his belief that Milldawg is likely not guilty.  The fact is, mAc and Milldawg could have used any method to choose who's innocent or guilty (Milldawg says roles were random and not mAc-random, putting AA7's justification for his theory on even shakier grounds).  The second kind of metagaming leads to you playing against the gamemaster and not the other players.  Or, even worse, leading to you making some very bad assumptions (the "mAc is playing ergo he must be evil LYNCH HIM NOW!!!111" is a good example of that). 

No one is arguing about the "randomness" of the roles. Hes simply saying that Milldawg and AA7 were not possessed based on the argument about "fair play", whether you want to believe that or not is another matter. I am inclined to agree with AA7s assumptions since there seems nothing else to go on at this point.

[Thalraxal]

@Auirsrage2k: I'm not arguing about the randomness of the roles either, AuirsRage, especially now that Milldawg's confirmed that they were chosen at random.  AA7's argument is based on the idea Milldawg (and by extension mAc) had a direct influence on the selection of roles.  This is wrong, they were chosen at random and left as is.  I'm not saying that this means that Milldawg is possessed by evil, or that AA7's got a hidden agenda.  It just means that AA7's argument for Milldawg's innocence is fundamentally flawed.  I still stand by my argument that AA7 is likely innocent.  I don't know about Milldawg, but I'm certainly not willing to cross him off of my suspect list yet. 

[Lavarinth]

Again, let it clearly stated suggested that only he and Milldawg are surely innocent. I am not saying he is suggesting the rest of us are guilty, but that he seems quite edgy to go as far as proclaim Milldawg innocent without anything to go by other than one simply post as equally conversant as our own. With such logic, we're all innocent.

[AA7Dragoon]

I am a little confused on how I am contradicting myself here.  Let me clarify my statement.  Yes, the roles are randomized.  If Milldawg was given the role of being evil, I am saying he probably would not have killed Dread.  This isn't definitive proof.  I am not going to proclaim Milldawg is 100% innocent.  I am saying it's something to consider when finding the night's first suspect.

Lavarinth can play aggressive all he wants, but he's barking up the wrong tree.  The roles may be randomized and I may have an equal chance of being guilty like everyone else here; however, based on last night's actions with Dread's death, I have precedent to back me up.