araver

1. kristmark1 2. EDM 3. curr3nt 4. Tolecnal 5.Slick 6. Akriti 7.Shad 8. maurice 9. LJ (LJayden) 10. KlueMaster 11. smoth333 12. MiKi 13. Aaryan 14.Zweefer Backups 1. 2. Thalia 3. 4. Framm18 5. Araver Adding a backup. Not sure what the order is/was, so I added a spot.

Hmm, very very interesting one.

Giving newbie hosts a chance to host while being supervised for the first time comes from a long line of experiences. There are threads that debate a lot of aspects, so let me just recall one of the conclusions: Hosting a Mafia game and Playing a Mafia game are two very different things, to the point of requiring a different set of skills, and while playing several games is a very good foundation, in itself, it does not guarantee success. So, because a lot of people want to host after they play a few games, the current newbie + experienced host setup allows all newbies to try it out, while guaranteeing that the game does not fail / the players are not disappointed. Or at least to ensure a good learning experience for the newbie host and a nice playing environment for the (also possibly new) players. As long as there are a lot of experienced hosts around, this works best. At least for Trainer's Manual Mafias where there are a lot of potential new players and a lot of questions to be answered during the game. Back to the initial question, there are a lot of situations one has to deal when hosting a Mafia game. And not all situations surface in the first (co-)hosting experience. So, while two (even first time) newbies can theoretically pull off a Mafia together, it would be advisable for all involved (especially for the players) to have some sort of mentor/3rd party in a host BTSC which can be summoned or intervene with an opinion if needed. As for the previous discussion about first-time hosting / further references: - has most of the terminology of the game and includes basic hosting tips. - Guide to Hosting is an expanded version that includes a lot of pitfalls and potential solutions.

Completely OOC, but hey I'm insane anyway, so bear with me for a second: I don't really think so. I've both won and lost coinflips, and while it feels cheap for someone to lose b/c of a coinflip, there is no standing rule avoiding that endgame in Mafia. Another unavoidable (sometimes) ending is when everyone wins. The only ending which is completely avoided is where no one wins (no host dares that). There is some debate on what "being in majority" means and if 1 vs 1 ties can be ruled as a shared win, but ... when there are only 2 factions, with one faction set on eliminating the other, there is no tie win rule possible (i.e. everybody wins), so the game goes on. For 1G vs 1B in the beginning of a day with no vote manip, it all depends on the tie lynch rules: - lynch = no tie - the faction with the (EDIT: unblockable) NK wins - random player in the tie is lynched - one faction wins - coinflip ending - all players in a tie are lynched - tie win however weird that sounds So, in this particular case, the hosts will probably (should) say that the baddies won the next coinflip and wrap up with a nice ending.

I saw a spot there ... right between you and Aura and figured ... this is the perfect spot to (not) get hit by lightning.

Okay then. Insanity it is. Host = Molly Mae 1. Hirkala 2. Lionheart 3. onetruth 4. tolecnal 5. maurice 6. Insane araver 7. Auramyna 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Darth Nox 13. Shadow7 14. curr3nt 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

That is a very ego-stimulating type of blackmail if I may say so Though I fear my insanity can't be cured that easily (though I can try to switch the pills till I find something with less side-effects). Sorry, missed it. I'm kinda "screwing"/hosting 2 at the present, so I'd be confused as an early released mental patient *shrug* But if it helps get the game underway and if it works mechanics wise ... then I will re-signup gladly.

Host = Molly Mae 1. Hirkala 2. Lionheart 3. onetruth 4. tolecnal 5. maurice 6. 7. Auramyna 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Darth Nox 13. Shadow7 14. curr3nt 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Figured this would be better, insanity and all.

Host = Molly Mae 1. Hirkala 2. Lionheart 3. onetruth 4. tolecnal 5. maurice 6. 7. Auramyna 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Darth Nox 13. Shadow7 14. curr3nt 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Araver Yes, I don't know what I'm doing. And yes, I said I'm gone and I will be dw ... but since I have to wait for a certain game to be re-un-paused in order to retire, might as well enjoy myself in the meantime. Plus I wanted to play in this one since it was in Game Ideas ... wasn't able to play Titanomachy nor Amber

TMM-VI (SIX) Host: First Time Host & Experienced Co-Host. 1. Bong 2. mboon 3. Canadola 4. tolecnal 5. 6. 7. Zweefer 8. ethg242 9. 10. 11. ... Backup/ Mentor 1. TheCube 2. 3. Pure Mentor (not playing/not backup) 1. Aaryan 2. Thalia 3. MiKi OK, sorry to throw a wrench in here somewhere but, let's just call it TMM VI (6, Six) since there is no actual VI . Sholay did not use these signups, and does not contain the words Trainer's Manual anywhere. Second, we got no (confirmed) hosts yet. So, any player who wants to start up hosting (but has experience playing, see the Newbie guide for tips re: first time hosting), and wants to try hosting a TMM (which is recommended as an easier first hosting, since there are less action interferences / role clashes): go find an exp host willing to help you and sign up as a host pair. EDIT: make sure you have the time to host this once it fills up. Hosts being active / having enough time is critical! And if may throw another suggestion since the design of TMM VI is not even started yet ... TMM's so far have been 2 vs 6 or 3 vs 7, with a clear streak of 5 consecutive baddie wins. I believe for a Trainer's Manual Mafia which most likely has 1-2 goodie inactives N1/D1 (kinda critical), there is enough evidence in TMM I-V to try an approach with more goodies/other ratio (e.g. 2 vs 7, 3 vs 8). Just my opinion.

Congratulations Anon and Molly for a very entertaining Mafia, I liked the story very much Congratulations baddies, since, well, you've won I have one word for Nana though, and please don't take this the wrong way, these are just my personal experiences/conclusions/biases rounded over more games. Also, this game is over so you can take what I'm saying at face value now All of the statements below are true, but the order is important: #1 Mafia is not a straight-logic game. Players need to conceal a lot in the game, starting with their role, their intentions and their inner suspicions. Without that, one would more likely loose than win. As a corrolary, people should expect the other (experienced) players to act the same and not take everything at face-value. #2 Without logic, one would most likely loose than win. (Much more likely loose as a Goodie). #3 There may come a time when it may seem that the game will be lost soon if decisive action is not taken quickly. That is a time when metalogic dictates #1 and #2 will not get a win and must be put on hold. So, basically, in this game ... you've broken #1 on D1 by outing the most important Goodie role (the one which makes a difference in the worst case endgame 3 vs 3), then you've broken #2 on D2 by not trusting 3 of the persons voting for tolecnal ... one of which could have been the spy (maybe the one saying evidence every post) and chose to not vote for someone who did not defend at all and voted for a goodie D1. As a vote manip, that's deadly poison I'm not picking on you in any way, I'm only sharing the above thoughts because you're obviously capable of being considered no longer a newbie and thus stand to benefit the most from feedback from each and every game. And I'm not considering you the culprit for goodies losing or anything ... I have also seriously broke #3 in this game by not being there, as I intended, 3-4 hours before D2 end, to out myself if needed to lynch tolecnal (and if my hints had not been picked up). And it was my duty as the spy to do so. I did not, and we lost. @Anon & Molly - re: the meta-superstition. I was wrong ... need more study

Well ... @Aura - you've failed the test. I thought I was obvious enough, even for newbies. If you want, we can try the Segul test on that *shrug* @Nana - And you have failed me as well. OOC: Please don't shorten my name like that. It's short as it is . Use AV if you must (as it comes from AraVer). @rest - sorry I could not actually devote more time this day. I knew I could turn the lynch, but did not make it time *wave* *wave* *wave* *wave*

If your claim had been right, you would have been killed already. Or if they decided you were gonna be saved, they would have blocked the saver you "outed". So, kinda flimsy rationale if you ask me. Vote for tolecnal. I'm only gonna say this once. If you do that, you're gonna clear your name. Very well. That was an honest answer. As I said 3/3 would have been too much. Between me and you and Cube (who was blocked), someone has to have evidence. Hoping you'll be around later on.

Yes, you did. That bit I've thrown at you during the night was meant to keep you alive. Or me. Or both. Not needed now. It's not that . And I can't speak for all humans but were pretty logical. You can't extrapolate from 1 person. Also, more often what it looks like is not what it is in a game of Mafia. So, this is why she must be still alive today. Btw, not so fun for you to vote for each other on D2 is it? I mean you not voting for tolecnal nor she for you. And thank you for giving enough info to add to Cube's conjecture. @Cube - 2/3 or 3/3 with Bong yet to speak.

Beliefs are temporary placeholders for evidence. I don't think all those voting for Slick on D1 were baddies. To lynch a goodie on D1, a baddie just needs to jump on a bandwagon at a convenient time and to profit from goodies lacking a better target and inactivity. I don't think a mentor would not have told them not to stick out like that: all 3 lynching the same target. So that would be the least likely hypothesis imo (so far). 2/3 is likelier. 1/3 is the likeliest.

1. Aaryan - Killed by baddies 2. tolecnal 3. Nana7 4. TheCube - voting for tolecnal 5. mboon - Killed by baddies 6. Slick - Lynched D1 (Found out to be Robert Menzies ) 7. Darth Nox 8. Aura 9. Bong A. Araver - voting for tolecnal Baddie flipping tentatively but quietly and conveniently bandwagoning as a third vote on D1 + baddie saying he knew from the start Slick was good. Can you tell us who the other two ones are?

Updated Queue. Current order: 1. TMM-V - In progress 2. Sholay - In progress 3. Coup of Rhotus Thanks for sharing the tool with us. About the Vanilla question, no, it is not captured/weighted directly in the balance weighting system. It is captured indirectly only for inheritable roles or when adjusting wincons based on number of players in the game. While it is clear that a 2 vs 5 game is not the same if one adds 10 vanilla goodies making it 2 vs 15, the weighting system currently shows the same weights. My own personal bias on this matter is that vanillas should somehow be scored indirectly - for example adjusting the sum of weights from the abilities of the minority/baddie faction with the number of other faction players. This factor would represent the "opposition" that is faced by a faction number-wise. In the above example, the 10 vanilla goodies would still be weighted as adding 0 to the power of the goodie faction, but the extra 10 vanillas would diminish the power of the baddie faction. This would capture the imbalance. But I have not come up with a good formula that would work with the current weighting system devised by BrandonB. I fiddled in my head with dividing with the number of opposition players (1/5, 1/10) or multiplying by own numbers/other numbers (2/5, 2/15 in the examples). Still, it does not seem that linear and these formula would break the current system, since in its current form, the weights show balance for a game without vanillas.

Well, that was a bit frustrating to watch *shrug* I would add that there is a bright side to this D1 lynch, but I'll bite my lips for now since this is only based on meta-superstition which is both metagaming and I have not gathered enough statistics to prove it either. Just a word for Nana7 ... you jumped the gun a little too much/obviously. Makes me double-think about the motives behind directing with such conviction a (wrong) lynch on D1. Looking forward to talking to you in tomorrow's lynch. But not before.

Hosts: Molly Mae && Anon26 1. Petrus 2. tolecnal 3. Nana7 4. TheCube 5. mboon 6. Slick 7. Zweefer 8. km1 9. Bong A. Artificial Backup: 1. Hidden G 2. Aaryan 3. Auramyna Mentors: 1. Auramyna 2. Akriti 3. Shadow7 4. Thalia 5. KlueMaster (though my own mafia record is not worth mentioning) 6. Araver

Regarding Anon's statement (since I was his mentor in the game he mentioned): If a player comes up with an idea ... e.g. "I'm a vanilla. How about I hint at being the Doctor so that the baddies kill me instead of the Doctor? Would that help?". Then the Mentor tries to weigh in with some statements without actually making a decision ... e.g.: "If you do that: The upside - baddies may be tempted to try to kill you IF the Doctor is unable to save yourself as stated in the rules. The downside is that the Doctor might think that you are Baddie claiming your role and vote for you, or even get active and try to lead a lynch against you. If you do that early in the game, say N1, there's a bigger chance of taking the hit instead of the Doctor. But if you do that later in the game, the Doctor may be already dead". Etc. So not really assigning odds - just being helpful with identifying and setting aside the Pros and Cons of doing something / Someone to bounce ideas with / Someone who could tell you what is more likely out of two things, what is equal likely, what is unheard of - borderline impossible, etc.

I'm glad you noticed it We were kinda worried that our Writer/Animator backstory would not get noticed. It started as a playful twist and served as a backbone of their relationship. That was very fun. Well, in day 3, the Animator buys a new one, the Writer is still in possession of the original mug. Day 4 - the Writer grabs the coffee mug just before leaving while the Animator is using the new one (and taking over the Writer's job). There's room for Episode 2 if needed "The mug strikes back" and what not. Now for the other comments ... Indeed N1 may have set the game on a lucky path for the Indy though he did not know who was who among the 3 and always had to discover at least half a pair by deduction. But IMO, lucky N1 or not, the real turning point was D1 outing as it gave the Indy unprecedented (at least from my PoV) info as early as D1. So, yes, per original design, his redirects controlled the night. Which is something not really expected by any of us. As a side-note, we've actually discussed anyone pulling a "curr3nt move" (from Tombstone Mafia) e.g. getting all goodies to cooperate and out themselves to the Indy somehow, in order to give him absolute power over baddies. This is why the Indy wincon was decided to end the game preventing any sudden tie. Longer, elaborated ties were still possible, and I don't really regret leaving that in, since it lead to an interesting alliance/backstabbing. However, as Molly pointed out, he could have betrayed in N3 and get his second archnemesis redirect and then leave 2 vote redirects for the next day (e.g two attempts to guess a Porky or getting lucky with Bugs or Wile getting a vote manip). Redirecting two vote manips his way might have given him control of the lynch - given enough inactivity, - there were only 10 votes cast on D3. His vote + x2 + x2 = 5 not really enough for a (lucky) tie in the lynch. And yes, we had a great time when he redirected Road Runner to self while the Road Runner was already saving him. The baddies however stood no chance after the end of N3. The Redirect >> all actions and inability to kill Taz directly without getting redirected made all their knowledge kinda pointless. Weird butterfly effect since the massive goodies outing, without Taz, would have led to a quick win for the baddies. Earlier than N3, they could have tried to vote on D2 and save Medji - secret vote manips were against this - there was a 3 vote gap, not enough to make a tie ... but they did not even try i.e. 2 baddies did not vote. Also, they tried a not-acting trick far too late IMO. This might have worked with better results in N2. Timezone differences made it very hard to coordinate on a plan like that which involved all baddies acting like a group *shrug* Also, there was no leading voice - in my heavily biased opinion - they did not reach a mutual trust/momentum which is usually a part of Baddies BTSC - get a plan early on, stick to it, only correct it if absolutely necessary (not just by having a slightly different opinion), synchronize implementing the plan (including flash-voting and such), etc. There were a lot of clever suggestions, but most did not gain enough support to be implemented *shrug* Disclaimer (after getting burned a couple of times, I feel this disclaimer is really necessary): The above paragraphs are just for general feedback / peek view behind the scenes. Not criticizing - just pointing out how it looked like from a host's perspective. And yes, it is biased because omniscience will always bias a host. Thanks for your understanding. And, ooops, just realized we didn't actually post the Secret Ability(ies). It's almost as Molly described - with a twist. He could have been lynched D3, even if he had not been RID Killed before.

*cough* It's been added