Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Delirious Deleuze, for the subject

2 (25%)

Chairs, against the subject

6 (75%)

Total Members Voted: 8

Voting closed: May 29, 2014, 10:41:04 pm

[Twistedarcher]

tl;dr

[Witherweaver]

It's sort of hard to evaluate because I don't think DD and Chairs took up contradictory positions. 

[pacovf]

Am I even allowed to discuss in here? I am not in this game. Feel free to ignore the following in case of a negative answer.

Aren't they actually defending the same position? To me it kinda looked like:

DD: I am going first, which is a disadvantage, so I'll compensate by tweaking the question; a random lynch is actually not that random when you think about it, so it's good and better than no lynch.

Chairs: random lynch is bad, it's much better to do an informed lynch, although I concede that a lynch in D1 is actually not that informed and basically just gives more info for the "real" lynches in later days.

[luser]

Did somebody tried to do statistic of D1 lynch success rate? I would not be much surprised if choosing D1 at random would have better probability of catching scum.

[yuma]

Did somebody tried to do statistic of D1 lynch success rate? I would not be much surprised if choosing D1 at random would have better probability of catching scum.

Not exactly, but we have kept stats in general. Here are all the games where scum (mafia) was lynched successfully day1.

Just pulled the data on this...

Excluding Blitz and RMM games:

Lynched Scum Day1    Town Won?
MXI - Grujah              Yes
MXV - Galz (SK)          Yes
MXVII - Lekkit             Yes
MXXII - Kooshie          No
MXXIV - Winterspartan   Yes
MXXVIII - chairs           Yes
MXXX - mail-mi            Yes
MXXXII - sudgy (SK)    Yes
MXXXIX - raerae         Yes

So we have 9 scum lynched (7 mafia and 2 SK) with only 1 scum team pulling out the victory in the end.

Keep in mind that we have played about 40 games up to the points where the stats are through and none of them used a random lynch (except for one blitz game that was excluded because blitz games are a very different animal). So only 9 out of 40 (roughly about 25%). so about 1/4. Given that regular games use 2/9 (22%) or 3-4/13 (23% and 30%) scum in town I would say that we do pretty good compared to random lynches + get the bonus of having information from it that you wouldn't get from a random lynch except who was in favor of random lynching.

[eHalcyon]

Can I get some context on how these debates factor into Mafia 43?  From a skim of the opening posts, I'm getting:

- all players are divided into 3 neighborhoods
- neighborhoods will sometimes compete in mini-games/challenges, with rewards to the winner

I take it that this series of debates is one such challenge.  But how do these challenges factor into the overall game, considering that the neighborhoods do not match up with in-game alignment?  Perhaps the prizes generally help out townies in the winning neighborhood, so scum may try to throw the match (and there can be discussion on how earnestly a player tried to win)? 

Very curious about how this set up works, but I am too lazy to read through the thread in-depth.  I'd love a short summary or something.  Maybe by PM if this can't be discussed, given that the game is on-going.

[ashersky]

There are contests each night, with the winning house receiving a prize.  The effect of the prize is sometimes known.  Effect on the game varies per prize.

[shraeye]

Am I even allowed to discuss in here? I am not in this game. Feel free to ignore the following in case of a negative answer.

Aren't they actually defending the same position? To me it kinda looked like:

DD: I am going first, which is a disadvantage, so I'll compensate by tweaking the question; a random lynch is actually not that random when you think about it, so it's good and better than no lynch.

Chairs: random lynch is bad, it's much better to do an informed lynch, although I concede that a lynch in D1 is actually not that informed and basically just gives more info for the "real" lynches in later days.

It bothered me that DD started by saying "here's an argument that says the other person can't respond to me"...and then added a section that was the "offensive".  If this was to be believed, then DD could respond to any arguments chairs could theoretically before they came up, but prevented chairs from responding to anything DD actually did bring up.  That and the topicality debate was pure nonsense.  That sort of stuff turned me off to policy debate.  There is actual ground from which to argue that random D1 lynches (as mafia-people and not dictionaries define them) are good.  But instead, the ground was shifted to something else, and focused purely on debate tricks.

[eHalcyon]

Subjectively speaking, I am very much against random D1 lynch.  Objectively, I think that it's possible to argue for it though.

First, to define the term -- a random lynch is one that is not based on anything else.  No specific info, no tells, no reads, no theory based on the known game setup.  Purely random, with the exception of completely obvious things to account for like "don't lynch the IC".

If I had to argue for random D1 lynch in a debate, I would try to argue that the alternative is worse (obviously). 

At the start of the game, there is precious little information.  Barring obvious scum slips, any scummy behaviour could just as easily be day 1 jitters or even a simple difference in play style.  I prefer to sit back and watch whereas others may be more aggressive.  Either action could be spun as scummy -- laying low is trying to avoid attention!  Aggression is just trying to push for a quick mislynch! 

Trying to make sense of player actions before the first lynch and night phase is a wild goose chase.  Worse, the scum have far more information than the townies at this point of the game, which in turn can give them a lot of control.  Scum partner under fire?  Nudge the focus towards somebody else.  Townies getting angry at each other for no reason?  Grab some popcorn.  But scum can't defend against a random lynch.

But doesn't that mean we won't have any useful information from D1?  Not necessarily.  You can still do the usual D1 discussion, finger-pointing, nit-picking and wagoning.  Even if these things don't ultimately lead to a lynch, they still have meaning.  Sending somebody to L-1 is still pretty big, especially with certain hammer-happy players.  And then you'll also have night actions to consider, which can account for a lot depending on the setup.


My actual opinion is that you can always do better than random.  You might be able to glean some info out of a random lynch, but you get much, much more when you let players find reason from the madness. 

I think the records show that d1 lynches in f.ds actually have a higher success rate than pure random (in an actual debate, I would go check).  But even if that isn't true, there is just so much more weight to every action when the final result isn't random.  Knowing that a dice roll will determine the lynchee actively disengages players who no longer feel the need to criticize every little thing that others write.

Scum can try to manipulate the d1 lynch result by turning attention and breeding conflict, but these actions can be uncovered and dissected in subsequent days.

[pacovf]

It bothered me that DD started by saying "here's an argument that says the other person can't respond to me"...and then added a section that was the "offensive".  If this was to be believed, then DD could respond to any arguments chairs could theoretically before they came up, but prevented chairs from responding to anything DD actually did bring up.  That and the topicality debate was pure nonsense.  That sort of stuff turned me off to policy debate.  There is actual ground from which to argue that random D1 lynches (as mafia-people and not dictionaries define them) are good.  But instead, the ground was shifted to something else, and focused purely on debate tricks.

I understood that as DD asking Chairs not to read his argument before writing down his for the sake of fairness, which seemed like a reasonable thing to ask. The part about topicality got me head-scratching though.