thellama73 wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:
You're entirely right, but I don't think Mongoose or Elohcin have necessarily nefarious intentions in throwing out theories, do you? That's where I was confused because you seemed to be suspecting them.
I'm all for discussion; as I said previously, if it seems we've discussed the poll and there's nothing to be ascertained from such discussion, that's fine. I don't see why we can't talk about both items. I appreciate your initiative to attempt to bring up discussion on baddie hunting as well.
I don't know what their intentions are yet. I just thought I would explore the idea.
I feel a little bad now, because I really don't want to discourage conversation. I sincerely appreciate the level of contribution by Mongoose and Elohcin, and I hope they won't turn quiet now because of something I said.
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Here's the thing about low posters. I largely agree with you; however, there are many reasons players could be low posters, especially so early in the game. I find the distinction between low and high posters, especially early on, to be decided often by circumstance, rather than alignment. For example, I've been there where I've signed up for a game and just don't have near enough time, and I've witnessed this happen to others as well, and they become an incorrect suspect just because of such fact.
In the lack of actual evidence, I can understand a Day 1 vote for that, and I may even vote for a low poster myself. But it's difficult to make inferences on that fact alone; it's also good to consider: whether anyone seems to parroting other players' ideas ONLY when they're posting or if they are not posting much but actually making insightful contributions; whether such behavior is normal for them to do so and whether they have provided substantive reasons for their absence; etc.
It's very unlikely we'll actually have solid evidence to find a baddie on Day 1, or even through Day 3, as the first few days can be like shooting in the dark, but I think we can both agree that it is imperative to avoid logical fallacies leading to bandwagons as well as outlandish, reckless behavior which will lead to civvie lynches and no leads.
Thus, suspecting Mongoose and Elohcin only because they threw out illogical theories tells me nothing about their alignment; suspecting you because you were the first to throw out suspicion on them likewise tells me nothing.
I'd much rather vote elsewhere and I refuse to vote randomly (only upon occasion, to prove a point, but it seems this point is too manipulated when I do so, so I'm not sure I intend on doing this again in the near future unless game circumstances support it being a likely way to vote a baddie instead of a civvie).
Yes, these are all good points. Thing I've noticed is that reywaS and Matahari have been participating quite a lot in the game over at RM, yet are quiet here. Could be that they only have time to focus on one game right now, could be a difference in tactics.
I also want to say something about bandwagons, a point I made over at RM recently. While, bandwagons can be dangerous things, a highly spread out vote on Day One basically guarantees a civvie lynch, because it only takes one vote for the baddies to tilt the balance away from one of their own. Whereas, if a bandwagon forms and we happen to pick a baddie, they have to either accept it or risk outing themselves by all voting the same way.
I've noticed when I'm in multiple games, especially when life is busy, I just cannot keep up. I'm willing to give any prospective player the BOTD especially early on, but obviously someone has to receive my vote at some point. You're correct it could be attributable to either of those reasons, and any subset of logic behind either of those reasons. Seems an awfully weak reason to vote for someone at this time, but I think considering as much as possible is probably beneficial.
Very astute observation about bandwagons. However, highly spread out votes can also have a flipside in that in certain circumstances they can also help uncover baddies once more information has been provided (see: MacGyver where Vompatti saved me; I was lynched, then it was deduced he was my teammate, and we fell apart).
I don't think we should make a conscious effort to necessarily avoid spread out votes or bandwagons; players should vote the way they want to, organically. But these are things to keep in mind for analysis.
BigDamnHero wrote:Wow...I just...yeah...
<scratches head>
So after our first poll we found out exactly nothing...is this common? I mean a few of you are theorizing that the answering machine clip has some relevance but without any context to reference I think we'd just be taking stabs in the dark (which is just about as dangerous as running with scissors). I can't think of the actual term (I wanna say it's a psychology , but there's an aspect of human behavior which makes us naturally want to assign meaning to ordinary events when there may not be anything more to them. We can try and ascribe significance to a multitude of things in that clip...
Maybe we answer Marzipan's abstract thought question: is a penguin a bird or a duck?
Maybe Marzipan, Strong Sad, Homestar & Strong Bad are important as they are the only characters heard in the clip.
Maybe we have to watch V.I. Warshawski to find the next clue.
Maybe one of us has to get run over by a lawnmower blade (NOT IT!!!!!).
I'm not trying to squash anyone's theory, but the reality is we won't know what we don't know until we know it....or something. For the time being, I'm just gonna file this in the mental rolodex under "weird stuff I don't understand just yet but might be important to remember later."
It is quite common, actually; usually the Day 0 poll's meaning is not known until further in the game, and sometimes not even known until postgame discussion. It all depends on how the host decides to set it up.
You're exactly right that in mafia you do not know whether something is necessarily evidence or not until it can be proved to be evidence, usually via linkage to some other player or some particular event/happening, and even then skepticism can be preferable, as baddies can behave in any way imaginable.
What I find intriguing is that sometimes early baddie lynches are more helpful, in the long run, to baddies, than to civvies. Not always the case, but consider these:
In Bioshock, BWT was lynched on Day 2, and barely so. The discussion for the following day periods was centered around whether his teammates would have attempted to save him or not; many concluded it would have been logical to do so since they could have really used his role as an asset and could have saved him, and then subsequently tried to assess whether he was a goner thereafter or whether more course correction could actually be successful.
However, BWT had two teammates. Ajira missed the vote entirely. Russtifinko avoided voting for either BWT or Aces (the major two vote receivers) and instead threw off to the third major vote receiver, Lizzy. This proved to be an excellent strategy, assuming Night 8 had never happened, because Russ would NEVER have been logically connected to BWT for quite a long time due to that decision, and as such he secured proper distance from ties to his then newly deceased teammate, without seeming too close or too distancing.
I notice the thread often goes into a frenzy after an early baddie lynch, so we need to consider whether links that are formed thereafter are really as sound as we believe them to be. I've seen too many games where subsequent "links" or leads, and I've even exercised this too much myself, were thought to be the most logical courses of action but in reality led to many subsequent civvie lynches and no new information.
On the flip side, see Classic Super Mario Bros., where my team and I avoided lynches for so long, and eventually fell apart completely after my lynch, because we failed to play our hands too close to the chest.
Mafia is a game all about manipulation and attempting to uncover such manipulation; even more so, it's about understanding and analyzing behavior and making inferences about such behavior. As such, there are incredibly many factors to consider in every decision, which can make many periods very analogous to feeling as though you're shooting in the dark, yes.
I hope this helps. Also all things to keep into consideration, even for veteran players, such as myself, as we are just as likely to lose sight of these things as new players.
I thought analysis could take us to a baddie.
let me post!