Easter Egg Mafia

[Guest]

All actions:

Night 1, the baddie nk was smoth who self saved. The goodie nk was curr but Araver canceled it. Lucky for the baddies, because Aki tried to redirect mo to Slick, which bounced to Araver, so he would have been redirected to a Slick kill on n1. Shadow blocked Krist, Tole blocked Curr, Curr tried to block LJ who tried to protect Aaryan (I do not have record of who that bounced to, but was not needed). Slick spied Curr and Zweefer spied Klue.

Day 1 Klue created a tie.

Night 2, Araver and EDM killed each other, Tole blocked EDM, Shadow blocked Curr who tried to block Aaryan (would have bounced to Klue), Aki tried to redirect Klue, Smoth self saved again, Fram tried to save Slick, Slick tried to spy mo but was bounced to smoth, Zweefer spied Shadow.

Day 2 Klue created another tie.

Night 3, Krist tried to kill Zweefer but was blocked by THREE people, every block. Zweefer tried to spy slick but Aki redirected him to Tole. Slick spied Klue and Framm protected Klue, smoth protected Slick, and Slick killed Framm.

Day 3, no vote manip used

Night 4, Krist tried to kill Slick but Aki redirected Curr to Krist. Tole tried to block mo but was bounced to Klue. Slick killed mo. Smoth tried to save Zweefer, Zweefer spied curr and Slick spied Tole.

[curr3nt]

Wow...goodie killers were a bit kill happy.

-edit- Araver excluded even though I do not know why he trusted Klue.

Edited September 9, 2011 by curr3nt

[Guest]

@curr3nt

Araver asked me a question during D1 (whether I have a night action), and responding to that in negative I actually made a claim at one of the roles (Ginger Snap, Flour). The way he trusted me made me think he was Thin Mints and must have spied me. Perhaps my day action (and subsequent comments revealing that I acted) confirmed my role for him.

In fact, then it had been so obvious that your not getting the hint made you look suspicious. You are so experienced that you should've caught the hint in my response to Araver. And thus I had a hard time in curbing the temptation to have you lynched D1. I was going for Slick's lynch, but your last minute posts made me change my mind against you. Slick also made a suggestion at being flour. So, I settled for no lynch as either of you could've been a goodie.

Regarding EDM getting killed on N2, perhaps you helped there. When I made a case for killing EDM, your only objection was that she could be an Indy. When the only person opposing the proposal didn't think of her as a goodie, then why would someone else think so?

Day 2, we were plain lucky. I was happy to let Aaryan get lynched coz he never made even a suggestion at his actions. However, Akriti's bland vote during the last minutes complicated it. Her response to the votes on her was at best a lame excuse. She didn't look much good either so I left it on luck by balancing the votes.

Though I still do not understand, what was indies' plan with Mo supporting us and Aaryan looking suspicious from the very beginning?

[Aaryan]

Darn how was I suspicious?

[curr3nt]

Regarding EDM getting killed on N2, perhaps you helped there. When I made a case for killing EDM, your only objection was that she could be an Indy. When the only person opposing the proposal didn't think of her as a goodie, then why would someone else think so?

Uhm wow. That objection was me being afraid the Kill would bounce around. I had no idea who EDM was.

[curr3nt]

Darn how was I suspicious?

I didn't like the way you voted for me.

[araver]

@Nana - thanks.

And wow. That was a lot of bouncing.

The lucky bounce towards Slick N1 that I didn't know of ... well, I'm still glad I didn't try to NK that night.

Wow...goodie killers were a bit kill happy.

-edit- Araver excluded even though I do not know why he trusted Klue.

@Curr3nt

About trust: Basically what Klue says. And what is written below.

Besides, there's another general thing:

You two (Curr3nt and Klue) reminded me of Izzy/Phaze, goodies going aggressively to each other throats. 99% of the D1 cases such as this, the pair is formed from goodies with baddie lying deep in shadow, happy to throw anyone under the bus. Or an Indy with a get lynched wincon (not the case here).

Anyway, you both gave away a lot during the day, so no one should have bandwagoned on either of you actually *sigh* My take: When you see people very active D1, let them live through D1, spy on them, whatever, but don't lynch them right away. Information is gained through time. And a mislynch D1 is very very likely.

Oh, and curr ... most players may mistake mild passive-aggressive posts with baddy-ness, as evidenced by the two NKs and other actions on you. Not telling you to change your style or anything, just that you need to be prepared to accept a lot of activity directed at you, and to be prepared to incorporate it in your play-style. I don't know if you played with Phaze - (he's very experienced now, controlling his wifom to specific targets, he chooses his battles) - but he met with similar resistance from other players - a lot of actions (including goodie kills) directed at him, dying early in Mafias, etc. And there's always the question (I got into heated debates with him over this) if these gambits - accepting a lot of incoming actions - are worthwhile in all situations. e.g. if your team's situation looks desperate - such a tactic is high risk, high gain. But if the situation is uncertain/maybe balanced or even good for your team - then such a tactic remains mostly high risk for very little gain.

Just some bits to ponder, not trying to step on your toes or anything

For example I enjoyed your "Imma target Aaryan" gambit, but it could have easily left you framed for lynch in D2 if e.g. Aaryan was not an Indy, and if anyone took Aaryan out. You had very little to defend with in case of a frame. And anycase, the goodie killer tried to target you after D2, despite the fact that Aaryan was lynched as an Indy. Because in his eyes, you could still have been a baddie pulling a "Let's throw the Indy under the bus lynch". *shrug*

@curr3nt

Araver asked me a question during D1 (whether I have a night action), and responding to that in negative I actually made a claim at one of the roles (Ginger Snap, Flour). The way he trusted me made me think he was Thin Mints and must have spied me. Perhaps my day action (and subsequent comments revealing that I acted) confirmed my role for him.

In fact, then it had been so obvious that your not getting the hint made you look suspicious. You are so experienced that you should've caught the hint in my response to Araver. And thus I had a hard time in curbing the temptation to have you lynched D1. I was going for Slick's lynch, but your last minute posts made me change my mind against you. Slick also made a suggestion at being flour. So, I settled for no lynch as either of you could've been a goodie.

Regarding EDM getting killed on N2, perhaps you helped there. When I made a case for killing EDM, your only objection was that she could be an Indy. When the only person opposing the proposal didn't think of her as a goodie, then why would someone else think so?

@KlueMaster:

That's what I got from you, and even though that claim didn't narrow your role to 1, it was a very good directed hint for D1, which you could have easily avoided if you had been a baddie. So, I counted you as a goodie for answering a question which you could have easily dodged. I had no way of knowing if the answer was sincere, but choosing to give the more narrowing answer is a gambit most baddies don't afford D1. Especially not after a NK was saved.

Also I had to tell you can't narrow me, because otherwise you would have gotten the wrong impression that I either spied on you or was your pair (one that couldn't act N1). And I couldn't tell you I chose to not act since that would have narrowed me too much. I'm glad you chose not to pursue that line of thought.

Agreed about Slick, I had some doubts - but I saw his hint as Flour too - so I didn't pedal so much on it at the end of D1, left the lynch for Ginger Snaps to solve. But Slick ruined that after D1 ended by claiming he had an action when no one had died At the time I had no idea if he was an Indy or a Baddie, but decided to stay away from him at night and proceed with EDM.

Meanwhile EDM's vote was way off and was worth investigating (reflected or not). I didn't think I'd get killed so easily *shrug*

Uhm wow. That objection was me being afraid the Kill would bounce around. I had no idea who EDM was.

@Curr3nt

Bouncing the kill around on N2 would actually have been a good opportunity. We had 2 good ones: no NK N1 + no lynch D1, we could have afforded a casualty N2 if the kill would have bounced, and we'd have EDM to lynch D2 to unlock the Indies. At least that's what I thought as worst-case.

Also, loosely connected to this, you (still) drawing attention to yourself D1 is what convinced me you couldn't be a baddie. See, if I were a baddie, after the N1 kill goes off, I'd stay in shadow for as long as possible. You kinda went "interrogating goodie-like" which is very risky if you're a baddie. Till about mid-day D1, I still thought at most you might be a baddie trying to sell an Indy who got reflected N1, but that was slim. Then tried to wave you off KM. Repeatedly. So, you kinda made my day in the ghost thread when you started following KM's vote around. That "Yes, Master" was priceless.

Edited September 9, 2011 by araver

[Akriti]

Wow ! N3 and N4 were stupidities of mine.

[Guest]

That "Yes, Master" was priceless.

That "Yes, Master" was way too creepy. Was it just me that saw a direct reference to one of the Dracula movies?

Anyways, that was the most annoying thing that repeatedly made me regret not lynching curr3nt on D1.

[araver]

That "Yes, Master" was way too creepy. Was it just me that saw a direct reference to one of the Dracula movies?

Anyways, that was the most annoying thing that repeatedly made me regret not lynching curr3nt on D1.

Yeah, it was an Igor-like "Yes Master".

But it made my day cause the most annoying thing for the baddies in D2 would be 1 of them killed and the two goodies who were at the other's throat the day before voting together. However good your tempo is as an informed minority scheming in shadows, you kinda skip a beat there when you see forces coagulating in the open. It's like a breeze trumpeting the incoming storm, which will hit you if you don't find some counter-attack fast.

Or at least, in my insanity, that was what I was thinking in the ghost thread and it made me chuckle and feel very optimistic all of a sudden.

Edited September 9, 2011 by araver

[araver]

And btw (not trying to over-post here, but I can't edit my post above, and I spent a lot of time eating popcorn in the ghost thread ),

there's one thing I found harder to do when you're a baddie - more of a pitfall - and that's probably what started the "bandwagoning tell" in the first place.

Say it's past mid-day 1, and you arrive and see a lot of discussion and one player with a couple more votes on him or a tie (involving you or not). If you're a goodie, you:

- either know better (via night-information) and try to imply so with your vote directing the lynch somewhere.

- don't know, assess the situation and decide to believe A or B or C in the group and stick your vote somewhere.

What you can't really do as a goodie is not vote or vote using random.org and arrive on top of the already existing bandwagon. That's just an option telling "I have no idea who X is, but I'm lynching him anyway, and I can't be held accountable if he flips goodie cause random.org told me to". A goodie with unknown teammates would not go to that option late in the day. Telling people "I don't know, I choose to believe X for now so I'll vote for Y", and that you might reconsider depending on what Y happens to say or be - this is the most likely scenario a goodie arrives at: I don't know better, but I have to choose a side, otherwise I let the informed ones making a choice for me.

Bandwagoning in itself is not bad. Motives behind bandwagoning, as well as the existence of other more likely options before resorting to bandwagon, that's where the pitfall lies. One has to mimic a reaction as he/she would with limited information and exposed only to the what the game thread has already shown.

That's tricky to pull. Not easy to tell either - it can lead to false positives very easily. But it can be used to mark people as active-suspicious - why wouldn't they say something at a certain time, etc as opposed to passive-suspicious - why isn't he saying something / why isn't he/she voting, etc. I find active-suspicious more telling of sitting upon information and with a less rate of false-positives than passive-suspicious.

Edited September 9, 2011 by araver

[Guest]

thank you for your thoughts araver. very informative...

[curr3nt]

Yeah, it was an Igor-like "Yes Master".

But it made my day cause the most annoying thing for the baddies in D2 would be 1 of them killed and the two goodies who were at the other's throat the day before voting together. However good your tempo is as an informed minority scheming in shadows, you kinda skip a beat there when you see forces coagulating in the open. It's like a breeze trumpeting the incoming storm, which will hit you if you don't find some counter-attack fast.

Or at least, in my insanity, that was what I was thinking in the ghost thread and it made me chuckle and feel very optimistic all of a sudden.

Glad you enjoyed it. I try to entertain.

I was actually picking up an Indy vibe from Klue D1 mostly because it appeared Kris and maurice were supporting him. I also thought the baddies had the best chance of finding an Indy N1 and might do something about it. Then I thought that those supports could have been a set up to make them look good if something happened to Klue. So decided to switch gears to see what would happen.

Did anyone buy my "I was dyed" comment even for a moment?