Community Forums => I'M BACK => Topic started by: Khushrenada on September 24, 2008, 08:31:59 PM
Title: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Khushrenada on September 24, 2008, 08:31:59 PM
The other scientists watched with glee as Dr. Plugabugz McKay was booted from the show. Another arrogant scientist gone while they still lasted in the competition. Even though he was just a regular scientist, everyone thought it was a great thing. McKay ran away crying and jumped through a stargate. Unfortunately, he didn't set the cordinates correctly and ended up destroying a whole star system with himself in it.
That night, Spak-Spang, King of the Rescue Raptors and regular scientist was mulling things over to himself. With so much death, he hadn't done much rescuing. Noticing his plight, another scientist gave him a pill. "Here's a special invention of mine. It's like Prozac but ten times greater." Spak thanked the man and ate the pill. He did feel happy. In fact, he couldn't stop grinning. His grin grew so wide that it it split his skull in two and he died.
The next day, a group of scientists confronted Dr. Mario aka Thatguy. Spak died last night because of a pill you gave him they accused. Well, of course, Thatguy answered. I've been killing a bunch of you. That prize is mine.
"Great Scott!", yelled Nickmitch, "I have to go back to the past to fix this."
"I don't think so," said Dr. Mario and he hurled a giant pill that blew up on contact against Nickmitch. Meanwhile, Stevey the Professor shot a death ray at Insanolord. "Good news everyone," he cried out, "He's dead!" There was a brief cheer.
Looking over to his right, The Professor watched as Bill Nye unleashed a can of whoopass on Bustin98. Bill had leaped on top of Bustin and was punching the living daylights out of him. Dr. Mario and the Professor came over and started chanting," Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill Nye the Science Guy!" Finally, Bill ended the fight by strangling Bustin98 with a bra.
"So, which one of us gets the prize?" asked the Professor.
"I never thought that far ahead," admitted Dr. Mario.
"I did," said Bill, who slipped on a bar of brass knuckles.
Of course, the bloody outcome is well known to everyone now. Having been recorded in the history books and played over ad nauseum. The point of this history lesson was just to cover the events that led to the Nobel Peace Prize being decided the way it is now. By the octagon. Class dismissed.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Khushrenada on September 24, 2008, 08:32:52 PM
And the storyis finished. Ha Ha. I actually kept up with the story.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 24, 2008, 08:43:46 PM
Well, I can't say much except that the game was pretty much over after day one, when we accurately guessed that Vudu was the "Truth Serum" from the little we had talked to people. Vudu had left a clue saying who I was, but nobody noticed it, or perhaps the "A" for anti in it made it too hard to spot...
The rest of the game was just to see if we could do it without losing a mafia member.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: nickmitch on September 24, 2008, 09:05:58 PM
I knew that was you.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 24, 2008, 09:11:30 PM
The rest of the game was just to see if we could do it without losing a mafia member.
But you did lose a mafia member. I don't care what the official roles were--if Spak was playing on your side he counts.
Also, while I'm thinking of it **** YOU SPAK.
Whoops! I meant to vote for I liked the time/roles, but accidentally clicked on the new host option when I tried to hit vote. And since there's no vote-changing, looks like Khush loses.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 24, 2008, 09:14:27 PM
I refuse to vote. I did like the time changes, they were great. However, I like a different set of rules and roles in every game. So while I liked the limited roles this game, next game, I might like something else, and etc, etc, etc.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: stevey on September 24, 2008, 09:20:07 PM
NO FAIR! You changed the outcome by measuring it!!!!!
Oh wait, I won? Hooray!
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on September 24, 2008, 09:43:58 PM
There was some cheating in this game. WTF is the deal here. I fucking new it was thatguy god dammit.
WHY DID I GET THAT FAKE PM?
And how is that okay by the rules?!?!
this game sucked. period
SPAK THAT WAS BULLSHIT.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Dasmos on September 24, 2008, 09:59:54 PM
Here's a basic rule of thumb, if thatguy isn't killed off Day 1 or by the first night's hit, he's mafia.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on September 24, 2008, 10:04:22 PM
Here's a basic rule of thumb, if thatguy isn't killed off Day 1 or by the first night's hit, he's mafia.
yes.. I mentioned that earlier!
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 24, 2008, 10:23:44 PM
I just wanted to let everyone know that I investigated thatguy on day one and had already PMed Khush asking to investigate stevey on day 2 before I learned I was killed in the middle of the night.
You're all fools.
Also, I'm voting for Spak on day one from this game forward. He needs to be punished for acting like a total asshat this game.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 24, 2008, 10:24:55 PM
Here's a basic rule of thumb, if thatguy isn't killed off Day 1 or by the first night's hit, he's mafia.
How many times have we talked about this. I think I've only been mafia three times, anyways. Maybe three. The last time I played, I was neutral, and lived several days. Before that, I died by mafia hit the third night, I think. I was mafia before that, then, I was a townie for a long, long time, and helped lead several townie wins. Just voting someone out because they are a good player means very little, and a lot of the time, it can mean the townies lose.
Besides, how many times did someone initiate a conversation with me this game? The only time I got a PM without sending someone a message first was when I had Plugabugz for my vote on day 2, and asked people to PM me about that. No other follow-up, or anything.
There have been games where the mafia keeps good players alive just to get them voted out. Following the route of voting out good players just because they are alive isn't a good choice. Plain and simple. It's a bad way to allow the mafia to take advantage of you.
That's how I feel about that. Whenever you play a game, you need to put everyone on equal footing, and never underestimate anyone. Labeling a player as good or bad is a mistake. There's mafia, neutral, or townie. Those are the appropriate labels to base things on, with adjectives such as "suspicious" being good to use as well.
I can't imagine what would have happened if on day one, a random player messaged me, said I was in the mafia, and said they were the detective, that they wanted to make a deal with me. What would have happened then? I don't know, but I guarantee the game would have gone differently. That's just one strategy, but it's an interesting one that shouldn't be overlooked.
I know I'm ranting, but I'm trying to help. All I'm saying is that there's a lot of players that use the same strategy: Judge people by public information. That's not a bad strategy, but it's an easy one to manipulate when it's the only thing in play.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I investigated thatguy on day one and had already PMed Khush asking to investigate stevey on day 2 before I learned I was killed in the middle of the night.
You're all fools.
Also, I'm voting for Spak on day one from this game forward. He needs to be punished for acting like a total asshat this game.
And then you proceeded to talk like one would imagine the cop would, though. I messaged several people on day one, and of all the people, you were the one that most acted like a cop trying to hide would, IMO. I decided to hit you that night. Don't say everyone is a fool when you made foolish moves, yourself.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Zach on September 24, 2008, 10:35:43 PM
FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Dasmos on September 24, 2008, 10:46:29 PM
Eh, I only say it because as a mafia member it's a good idea to take you out first. You're good at rallying people together and good at sniffing out mafia from very few hints. Basically it's more about if the mafia doesn't hit you you're mafia, unless of course they do have information about a townie role.
I don't like the voting patterns against better players either, in the end it's what drives them away because they're always getting voted out first. I'm actually astounded that vudu still keeps plugging on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 25, 2008, 12:04:37 AM
I will confess that the fake letter was mine actually.
But, it was just to make the game interesting...
Hey, I correctly pointed out throughout the entire game I was a Townie, and Last day I gave you 2 Mafia members on a platter. If you didn't trust antiThatguy you had several days to get rid of him.
So what happened? Why the crazy behavior? Before the game started and roles were out thatguy and I swore to protect each other. It was a matter of trust between each other. I have almost never betrayed that trust in mafia. So, thatguy told me his role day one. I could have been a douche and leaked that information, but then I would never have his trust in mafia again.
I could have let it go and play normal...but 1)I knew a huge Mafia role and that felt weird. 2)thatguy and me both believed he would be dead early anyway. I mean, we didn't think we could get away with what we did for so long.
Day 1 I was acted suspicious enough but I wasn't killed. So why was I spared day 2? I was trying my best to keep thatguy from being voted out.
As for Vudu being upset. I never told thatguy who your role was. In fact, I told thatguy even if I knew the role that I would not give up a major townie, because that would ruin the fun for the mafia.
All I told him was to be careful with PMs because you didn't trust him. Something you told him allowed him to figure out you were the cop.
This was an interesting game, and I added a reminder that you can't trust anything in this game.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 12:13:46 AM
Wait, you're saying you knew Vudu's role? That's funny, because I really didn't know you knew his role.
No, what got me about Vudu is that he was bent on only working with people checked out by the cop. That's not how Vudu normally plays. Everyone else wanted to find the cop, but Vudu said something like "You'll probably be checked out early, when the cop checks you out, get him to check me out, and we'll work together after that." Things like that stand out to me.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: bustin98 on September 25, 2008, 12:40:50 AM
I picked up on Spak acting funny. I was trying to rally people to vote for him. But it failed. Then I sent Zach a PM and he responded 'Watcha got?' like its going to be funny no matter what I say.
But you, anti-thatguy (do you have a goatee and from a mirror universe?), were very pushy this game, more so than usual. But my group that I was gathering had died off and no one was really playing. So I didn't push my vote on others and I probably couldn't convince anyone anyway.
I want a Transformers G1 mafia game. I have an idea if someone wants to host.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 12:57:46 AM
I picked up on Spak acting funny. I was trying to rally people to vote for him. But it failed. Then I sent Zach a PM and he responded 'Watcha got?' like its going to be funny no matter what I say.
But you, anti-thatguy (do you have a goatee and from a mirror universe?), were very pushy this game, more so than usual. But my group that I was gathering had died off and no one was really playing. So I didn't push my vote on others and I probably couldn't convince anyone anyway.
I want a Transformers G1 mafia game. I have an idea if someone wants to host.
Of course I was, for one reason. Spak should have died on day 2. I had sworn I'd do my best to make sure he wouldn't die without his permission. I would have rather been voted off on day 2 than let Spak die, and that meant putting a risk out there in this case. Without me being pushy, Spak wouldn't have lived.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Khushrenada on September 25, 2008, 01:13:57 AM
I refuse to vote. I did like the time changes, they were great. However, I like a different set of rules and roles in every game. So while I liked the limited roles this game, next game, I might like something else, and etc, etc, etc.
I'm not planning on doing this every game. The point of the roles is that I was wondering if people thought there should have been more townie roles or one less mafia member. I was really debating whether to go with 3 or 2 members and whether or not I should limit townie roles to one only. Giving how fast the game went, I still think it's a concern. Although, a monkey wrench was thrown into things which helped tip the balance and there are always unforseen things that happen in any game. But factoring that in postgame, I'm still curious what people thought.
Frankly, I should just ask Plugabugz and Dasmos specifically if the time change was of any benefit to them since they represented the greatest difference in time.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on September 25, 2008, 01:17:09 AM
I picked up on Spak acting funny. I was trying to rally people to vote for him. But it failed. Then I sent Zach a PM and he responded 'Watcha got?' like its going to be funny no matter what I say.
But you, anti-thatguy (do you have a goatee and from a mirror universe?), were very pushy this game, more so than usual. But my group that I was gathering had died off and no one was really playing. So I didn't push my vote on others and I probably couldn't convince anyone anyway.
I want a Transformers G1 mafia game. I have an idea if someone wants to host.
Bustin, ask Plugabugz if I was a good host. I'd be happy to host for you if you would be satisfied.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Dasmos on September 25, 2008, 01:35:07 AM
Frankly, I should just ask Plugabugz and Dasmos specifically if the time change was of any benefit to them since they represented the greatest difference in time.
lol, basically nothing had happened during the day when I went to sleep and when I woke I was dead.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 25, 2008, 09:43:53 AM
I will admit that this game I was an ass to the townies...but as I said, I saw two ways to play this game, and I liked one a little more.
No thatguy, I didn't know Vudu's role. I am just saying, that nothing I said to you could have directly given you his role. I didn't betray him. I just warned you.
As for this game. I think Mafia at its core is a game of influence and trust. Who can you get on your side. Now, thatguy tried an interesting strategy that could have backfired. Day one telling me his role after making the alliance. It was a trust game...and I wasn't going to break it.
He had influence over me, and I him. We were partners. Now, this could of happened easily without an unholy alliance...because people in this game almost always find someone they think they can trust, and help each other win. If I picked a mafia member as that person to trust, the manipulation would have happened, just against my will.
I think the numbers of Mafia and townies were fine. I unbalanced the game...because it didn't matter if I died it wouldn't change anything I was going for.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: nickmitch on September 25, 2008, 11:16:05 AM
So, at the end of the day, Spak ruined the game. Let's just get over it, pack things up, and move on.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 25, 2008, 01:54:17 PM
So what happened? Why the crazy behavior? Before the game started and roles were out thatguy and I swore to protect each other. It was a matter of trust between each other. I have almost never betrayed that trust in mafia. So, thatguy told me his role day one. I could have been a douche and leaked that information, but then I would never have his trust in mafia again.
**** you. It's not my fault you put yourself in an impossible situation. You shouldn't have made the pact and you shouldn't have ruined the game for everyone else.
I'm not blaming you for my death. The reason I told you I didn't trust thatguy was because if I died on day 1 (which I was pretty sure I would) I wanted you to put 2 and 2 together and inform people that thatguy was mafia. Instead you kept the information secret and proceeded to **** over your team. Congratulations.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 25, 2008, 02:42:04 PM
You know...if you KNEW thatguy was mafia. or if you had an idea. and you did a cryptic message.
Why not post a blanket pm that states thatguy is Mafia, and if I die that is the reason.
You would have protected yourself and informed the townies.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Plugabugz on September 25, 2008, 02:51:57 PM
Bustin, ask Plugabugz if I was a good host. I'd be happy to host for you if you would be satisfied.
DaMan did a fantastic job with hosting it for me. I handle the rules and he handled the days. On day 6 there was a tie which i left to the points system to handle, which he delegated to me. Only 4 hours passed between when the last day closed and when i woke up so i could see everything done perfectly. In fact i hope to do another points-based mafia game at some point and would like to maintain the partnership.
Frankly, I should just ask Plugabugz and Dasmos specifically if the time change was of any benefit to them since they represented the greatest difference in time.
Last night it closed here at 1am. It's still about 2 hours too late for me.I can get an early vote in like i did in Day 3, go to sleep and wake up dead.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 25, 2008, 03:17:40 PM
You know...if you KNEW thatguy was mafia. or if you had an idea. and you did a cryptic message. Why not post a blanket pm that states thatguy is Mafia, and if I die that is the reason. You would have protected yourself and informed the townies.
You're an experienced player so you know should know it's never a good idea to reveal your identity to someone unless you know where that person's allegiance lies. Since I didn't know your role, I didn't want to come out and tell you who I was. I think we can agree it would be an even worse idea to send out multiple PMs because it would just increase the risk of accidentally revealing myself to a mafia member.
I decided the best course of action would be to lay some hints that--once I died and my role was revealed--would make the player go A-HA!, understand my prior messages and share his new found knowledge with the rest of the game. Take a step back and think about it.
1) I tell you I don't trust thatguy. 2) I die and it is revealed that I was the cop. 3) You know I had the opportunity to investigate someone before I died.
Wouldn't that make you think that perhaps my PM was saying more than what was written?
Besides, this is all a moot point because you decided to play the game how you felt like instead of by the rules.
Next time I'm mafia I'm going to pretend to be the cop and give up my teammates one by one each day. Why use the suggested roles when it's so much more fun to play by my own rules?
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 25, 2008, 04:00:15 PM
You know, you are taking this way overboard.
I should have thought differently in playing the game. But, I didn't give any townies up. And I only knew 1 single Mafia member (thatguy) until the end of the game.
All I was doing was trying to make sure thatguy wasn't voted out as our agreement. The best way I could think of to do that was make a better target than thatguy for the vote. So, I started acting strange. I knew I wouldn't be voted out by the mafia or killed. So I decided to be silly.
I never gave up your role...and I thought you knew nothing. You said "As long the cop stays hidden it is ok to form alliances." I took that as you weren't the cop and taking risks on the alliance.
All I told thatguy was you didn't trust him period. Something you told him in PMs led to believing you were the cop. And I didn't say you should have revealed you were the cop to everyone. Just a blanket PM that states you know thatguy is mafia. It may have led to your death if you chose the wrong people...so maybe limit it to 4 people randomly chosen.
I only learned Stevey was mafia the last day.
As for the letter it was a dumb idea that both thatguy and I created. It came up as silly ploy to try to make the game interesting, because sometimes these games go uneventful, and thatguy thought we needed something to spice the game up because the cop died day one.
We actually thought it would make the game harder for the mafia. I fully expected to be dead that day, and I also thought thatguy would be exposed.
I tried something different for a game...and it didn't work out like I thought it would. You live you learn. It just means we had a lousy 4 day Mafia. Next time, I won't do anything like this again.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 04:09:29 PM
You know...if you KNEW thatguy was mafia. or if you had an idea. and you did a cryptic message. Why not post a blanket pm that states thatguy is Mafia, and if I die that is the reason. You would have protected yourself and informed the townies.
You're an experienced player so you know should know it's never a good idea to reveal your identity to someone unless you know where that person's allegiance lies. Since I didn't know your role, I didn't want to come out and tell you who I was. I think we can agree it would be an even worse idea to send out multiple PMs because it would just increase the risk of accidentally revealing myself to a mafia member.
I decided the best course of action would be to lay some hints that--once I died and my role was revealed--would make the player go A-HA!, understand my prior messages and share his new found knowledge with the rest of the game. Take a step back and think about it.
1) I tell you I don't trust thatguy. 2) I die and it is revealed that I was the cop. 3) You know I had the opportunity to investigate someone before I died.
Wouldn't that make you think that perhaps my PM was saying more than what was written?
Besides, this is all a moot point because you decided to play the game how you felt like instead of by the rules.
Next time I'm mafia I'm going to pretend to be the cop and give up my teammates one by one each day. Why use the suggested roles when it's so much more fun to play by my own rules?
People play mafia the way they want to play, Vudu. While the mafia's goal is to kill all the townies, the townies have two goals: Kill the mafia and stay alive. Had Spak taken your "advice" he would have been killed, and he would have lost, regardless of a deal with me or not. Then he would have lost. What Spak did was ensure his survival, no matter what happened. The best part is, once he learned of a mafia player other than me, the first thing he did was tell everyone. That's the funny thing about it: He did reveal who two mafia members were, and he did survive as long as he wanted to.
Imagine this: Spak doesn't make the deal with me, and the townies win because of it, however, Spak's been killed by the mafia on day 2. Is Spak any better off? For Spak, the deal was the right way to play the game. It ensured that he would live until the end, giving him, as a townie, the best chance to win. The townie game is a balance between self and the group, and this round, Spak chose self. The mafia game is a group game, since all mafia wins if only one wins.
So, why did Spak send the message on day 2? Because he had already decided the game was over, and the mafia was going to win, that's why. At day 2, he only knew my identity, and if he decided to turn things, he'd die, and the mafia would likely win without the investigator. Spak and I talked it over, and we decided that the message would probably be the most fun thing we could do.
The issue about you being the cop and talking to Spak, then getting angry because he didn't play how you wanted is a moot point, because Spak wouldn't have played the way you wanted, anyways. Believe me, you can develop any master plan you wish, but unless you're there to see it through, it's not going to happen how you wish. Aside from that, Spak played the survival game on day one. He decided that he wouldn't survive unless he made that deal, which is one-half of his goals. His plan didn't involve the investigator announcing to only one person that a player is suspicious. You played the game wrong, according to Spak's plan. You're an experienced player, so you should know it's never a good idea to reveal your identity to someone unless you know where that person's allegiance lies. But you did, in a way, and it got you killed, and now you're whining about it.
Regardless, let's look at it this way: What's the point of leaving clues for the event that you die, Vudu? You won't win as a townie, anyways. Since that's not in your best interest, and actually greatly changed the game for you, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude you, yourself, played the game wrong? You decided to play the game how you felt, instead of "by the rules" (in your language, not mine), and it made you lose on day one.
However, wait a minute...the rules don't prohibit deals. They don't prohibit townie-mafia alliances. They don't prohibit townie sacrifice, even though the sacrificed player gains nothing. Vudu, you're assuming the goal of the townies is to defeat the mafia. That is a goal of the townies, yes, but the townies also each have the personal goal of survival. I know I'm being redundant, but if you believe Spak violated the rules of the game by looking out for his survival in exchange of striking down the mafia, then you violated the rules in an equal, but different manner by not looking out for your safety, and instead focusing only on striking down the mafia.
Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying, I don't know who will and who won't, but the idea with mafia is to do whatever you want to do that you believe will lead to your success, a victory for you. Some see survival as the main factor in victory, others see trying their hardest to make sure the townies win as the best chance of winning. The best players factor in both, when on the townie side. You didn't. Spak didn't. Plain and simple: If you believe Spak did something horrible, then you did something equally as horrible.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Khushrenada on September 25, 2008, 04:26:30 PM
All I know is that the end of the game has been more interesting than the start.
All in all, I think I'll probably start up another game pretty darn quick here. I don't think this has been very taxing and since most people hardly had time to play, I don't think there should be much mafia fatigue.
Here's a hint for the theme next game. SEGA.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 25, 2008, 04:29:27 PM
Liar. You "gave up" Daaaman and you claimed Kashogi was mafia even though he wasn't. I don't care if you personally voted against either of them--you were directly responsible for Daaaman's death and you would have been responsible for Kashogi's if he didn't get killed that night by mafia.
Thatguy, I'm not even going to respond to your post because you're grasping at straws. You know the way the game is supposed to be played. You try to break the game every time you play. This time you were successful.
Am I really the only one who's pissed about this?
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: nickmitch on September 25, 2008, 04:45:14 PM
I'm upset that ThayGuy played us like fools, and Spak basically sold out the townies. But, it's not worth getting worked up about it. They know what they did whether they want to admit it or not.
But yeah, that **** was bull-****.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 04:48:50 PM
No, so far every time I've played, I've tried to win, and have a good time winning.
Like you, there are things that I feel break the game, for example, players that don't play, don't talk, or don't vote. I accept that it's a strategy, though. These people play in an entirely selfish manner: They put their lives at the top, very top of the agenda, and do nothing to try to help for a townie win. Aside from that, they can give the mafia a hiding place. I hate that strategy, absolutely detest it, to me, it's the worst strategy you can have, but it doesn't violate any rules, and it is an entirely legitimate method of playing. These people typically assist the mafia, by allowing them to know who shouldn't be focused on, absorbing good townie roles, and not investigating and voting against the mafia. They offset the pre-set balance in numbers. But funny, you don't see me shouting at any of them and making a personal vendetta about it.
You're telling me that I play the game wrong, too? I try to break the game? I've got news, Vudu, that's how you win: You try to find and add tricks, loopholes, secrets, or anything you can to gain leverage, and then use them to your advantage, hoping the other side is less clever than you are. Every strategy has a counter-strategy. Every move can be reversed or overpowered. I play this game like a game of chess. En passent has won me a few chess games before, solely because my opponent didn't know it existed, and due to their ignorance of the set of rules we were playing with, they lost. Is it my responsibility to inform them of the rules? No. Did I break the game? No. Was my tactic unfair. I feel it wasn't, they feel it was. I won, they lost. I'm going off on a tangent, but I think it's a pretty good metaphor.
My goal each game is to win, right? Let's look at the Star Wars mafia, as much as I hate to bring that up. I had a neutral role that game. What did that mean? It was me against everyone in the game. Of course I looked for a way to tilt the table in my favor. That was my only way to win. That's what was expected to happen. Now, people complained, but what I did was one of very few pathways in which I could win without making a cheesy rule such as "The Senator is on the side of the townies." I wasn't trying to break the game, I was attempting to give myself a fighting chance. How many times has a neutral role won? They haven't. Apparently you believe that if a neutral role tries to win, that's an attempt to break the game.
Vudu, you accuse me of grasping at straws. Why? What am I grasping at? Plain and simple, Spak and I talked it over before the game began, and we both determined that no matter what, a deal like this would be helpful to both of us, regardless of what side we land on. We knew that chances are, if one of us were mafia, the other one would wind up dead pretty quickly, so we decided to override that, for both of our own sakes. In the end, in this circumstance, the deal didn't work for the townies, but what if you hadn't been careless about what you said, and acted entirely like a normal townie? You wouldn't have died, and it's likely the deal would have worked in Spak's favor. The fact of the matter is, it's not breaking the game, it's adding another layer of strategy to it.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 25, 2008, 05:02:03 PM
I personally don't 100% agree with thatguy's arguments.
But I am not a liar. I did not give up DAaaMan to death.
He received a letter that said my "guilt" and when I argued against it for fun, you decided to side with me.
I fully expected to die that night. That was what was going to make the letter so much fun. I expected to die. And then the confusion of what the hell happened, and what was that was supposed to carry on. I also purposely put thatguy's name in the message as a clue for once I died and was a townie for you to try to put the clues together.
Like Khush said...the end of the game was more interesting than the beginning why? Because it became NOT the typical mafia game. Something was wrong. The puzzle pieces were there, but they didn't fit together right.
If I was truly mafia why would I act so weird in the game making sure all the attention was on me to be voted out?
If I was a townie why would it seem I was protecting most likely mafia member?
Why was thaguy protecting me so much if supposedly he was a townie?
What was the deal with the letter, and most importantly, why did it name so many names, and use some of the names for the game anti-thatguy and then other names Stogi because I didn't realize a name had been changed. When both DAaaMan and Stogi were killed and townies...what did that mean for the game?
Why if I had 100% evidence pointing to me being guilty did I propose 100% certainty I was a townie. (I should have done the ban request if I was mafia.)?
As for admitting I sold out the townies...I stated from the beginning I was an ASS to the townies...but I still defend it made the game interesting. Perhaps not fun but a twisted interesting yes.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 05:04:39 PM
For the record, I 100% agree with thatguy's arguments.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 25, 2008, 05:21:14 PM
Spak and I talked it over before the game began, and we both determined that no matter what, a deal like this would be helpful to both of us, regardless of what side we land on. We knew that chances are, if one of us were mafia, the other one would wind up dead pretty quickly, so we decided to override that, for both of our own sakes.
As I already said, it was a bullshit pact that never should have been made. You two can play brother against brother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_against_brother) on your own time. There wasn't a brother & sister role in this game and it wasn't up to you to create one.
And for the record, I thought the way you played the game in Star Wars mafia was brilliant. When I was the T-Rex in Calvin & Hobbes mafia I didn't play the way the host intended. But I certainly didn't break the rules or sell out my own teammates.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 05:47:15 PM
Where in the rules does it say the mafia can't reveal themselves to the townies? Where does it say you can't lie, and where does it say the townies have to call out every mafia member they hear of? You've added in some twisted moral code that isn't there. You said it yourself: You don't have to play the way the host intends, you just have to abide by the rules. If there were a rule against pacts, then what we did would have been wrong. This wasn't the same as the brother/sister roles, either. What we did was completely in line with the rules, and I don't know why you can't accept that. No information was revealed that was against the rules. No action occurred that was against the rules. As far as I can tell, you just dislike Spak and I chose to play the game in a different way than you do. What we did was entirely fair and entirely legitimate. If you're not allowed to carry pre-existing feelings about people into the game, then you should be just as upset about those that come in with a vendetta and vote for the same player the first day every time.
If you want to be angry about the information and deals Spak and I chose to participate in, because they were made outside the game, then you shouldn't make any choices when you play based on outside information yourself. Wait...why was it that you investigated me first? Because I'm a good player? How would you know that if you were playing the way the game was intended to be played, where all players begin on equal footing? You can't have it both ways. We play these games using knowledge, information, and friendships we've learned and established in the past, from outside the game and from other games. That's not against the rules, that's a major part of the game. If the intention wasn't to have people you know playing the game, then each round, we'd be assigned a new screen name just for mafia play, so we wouldn't know who is who.
If your argument is that a mafia member and a townie shouldn't make a pact, well, you said it simply yourself: You can play in ways the host didn't intend. The only time something is against the rules is when it's understood, such as the dead not talking, or if it's explicitly stated. You can't just decide to expect everyone to abide by your own rules that you believe in. That isn't how the game works.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Khushrenada on September 25, 2008, 07:01:04 PM
Look, let me try to wrap this up.
Another case of going against one's role involving Vudu
Mafio GX.
If you can remember that far back, had something similar happen. In that game, Shyguy inherited the killer's power. Now the killer plays only for himself. So, he shouldn't have a side. However, Shyguy choose to align with the townies. He did this because some townies knew he had the killer ability and because he felt loyal to his previous townie alliance. Fair enough. But is that playing how he should be with that role?
And so he used his ability to kill the remaining mafia. Interestingly, at the end of game, the mafia successfully recruited the killer on to their side. They could have made two hits a night. Instead, the killer revealed who the last mafia member thereby betraying what his role was. He then waited for himself to get killed the next day by the townies and end the game with a townie victory. Even though he didn't win, he was satisfied with how he played and felt he was winner. Was that fair to the mafia? The funny thing is, Vudu benefited from that game. He was a townie and lasted to the end. Why was there no outrage then?
The truth is, I was very disappointed that Shyguy didn't play for the win but I didn't penalize him for it. People have their own views of how a role should be played. Heck, that's why I've been successful at this game is because I find unforseen uses with a role. Spak could have played his situation differently. He could have stuck with Thatguy and fought to keep him alive. But instead of voting for other townies or throwing mass confusion at them, he should have been working at finding the other mafia members. He had a deal with thatguy, not the whole mafia.
Why both Thatguy and Vudu are wrong
I'm not trying to point fingers or tell people how they should react to what happened this game or when players go against the grain as it were. If you want to be outraged, go ahead. But remember, this game can be a two street and I know a few occasions where the killer has worked to the benefit of the townies even though he should be playing for no side. And remember, you didn't have to listen to Thatguy or Spak. You could have made your own decision and voted for someone else or one of them. Like I told Vudu, he could have voted Thatguy day 1 and made it a tie. If someone broke that tie and voted Thatguy, the mafia would have had no hit and a different game would have unfolded.
Thatguy says Spak played correctly because he ensured survival. Well, I guess all townies should talk to mafia members from now on to do just that. Then everyone can survive. Vudu didn't vote for Thatguy on Day 1 to try and keep a low profile. It didn't work. So, we had two townies playing for survival. Like it or not, Thatguy, in order for the townies to win, some of the townies do have to step up and take the risk and die in order to see the mafia defeated. Or do you prefer when a townie posts nothing all game and then with two days left, shows up and gets credit with the win? He did what you suggested by ensuring his survival by keeping his threat level low. Is that better than the townie who voted out two mafia members and died?
The Real Problem
Here's why people are upset and I personally get it. They're upset because their sacrifice was in vain. There is nothing more frustrating to play the game well, give your fellow teammates (mafia or townie) an advantage in the game, get killed and then watch them sqaunder your work away. In this case, not only was the work squandered, it was willingfully ignored and actively worked against. That's why people are upset and that's what has to be rectified.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 07:33:25 PM
Thatguy says Spak played correctly because he ensured survival. Well, I guess all townies should talk to mafia members from now on to do just that. Then everyone can survive. Vudu didn't vote for Thatguy on Day 1 to try and keep a low profile. It didn't work. So, we had two townies playing for survival. Like it or not, Thatguy, in order for the townies to win, some of the townies do have to step up and take the risk and die in order to see the mafia defeated. Or do you prefer when a townie posts nothing all game and then with two days left, shows up and gets credit with the win? He did what you suggested by ensuring his survival by keeping his threat level low. Is that better than the townie who voted out two mafia members and died?
You're right, Khush, but I would, for the sake of my complete voice, like to state that anyone is free to play how they want to play. I'm not arguing that what Spak did was right or wrong, I'm arguing that it is entirely in his freedom to do it. It was an attempt to point out flaws in Vudu's argument, that Spak had gone against mafia Dogma by pointing out that people go against mafia Dogma all the time, and that just because something is different than how it was intended doesn't merit a grudge against the person. I just feel like if you're going to hold what happened this game against Spak, then any player who's ever sat on the sideline and any player that has ever not done what was best for his or her own personal victory should be subject to equal criticism, which, I believe is what you summed up. I'm not saying Spak did the right thing, but I'm not calling it wrong, either. I'm just saying that as long as you don't break the rules in each game, then there's no reason to be upset about who created what ever it was that happened.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 25, 2008, 08:06:36 PM
Khush, your entire argument is null because we're not talking about a neutral character here--Spak was a townie who was helping the mafia by screwing over his own teammates. There's no way you can convince me that's not wrong on all levels.
As I argued before, what if the next time I'm mafia I give up the identities of one of my teammates each day to ensure I survive until the end? Is that a fair strategy?
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2008, 08:13:27 PM
That's pretty much happened before. Not exactly, but pretty much.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: vudu on September 25, 2008, 08:19:42 PM
Well, I don't remember that, but it was pretty much **** then, too. Not exactly, but pretty much.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Zach on September 25, 2008, 11:04:54 PM
I picked up on Spak acting funny. I was trying to rally people to vote for him. But it failed. Then I sent Zach a PM and he responded 'Watcha got?' like its going to be funny no matter what I say.
Your PM to me said
Quote
"Just wondering.
I have one, but its kinda flimsy. I'm trying to get some peeps rounded up, get a consensous."
I wasn't trying to say that what you had was gonna be silly or stupid, but how am I supposed sound interested (townie or no) when you say "I have one." You have one what, a theory, a plan, an alliance, a suspect, what? Whatcha got!?!?
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: bustin98 on September 25, 2008, 11:46:29 PM
Well, its a perspective thing.
I PMed the same message to others and got different responses. Yours was the most basic of them, and it just seemed to indicate something. That's all.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Khushrenada on September 26, 2008, 01:08:22 AM
Khush, your entire argument is null because we're not talking about a neutral character here--Spak was a townie who was helping the mafia by screwing over his own teammates. There's no way you can convince me that's not wrong on all levels.
As I argued before, what if the next time I'm mafia I give up the identities of one of my teammates each day to ensure I survive until the end? Is that a fair strategy?
Rebuttal
It's not null because the neutral character was recruited to mafia. Thus he had a side. In fact, Pale who was a townie was also recruited into the mafia. When that happened, he went full tilt into mafia mode and made a beautiful play. He didn't sell out his new teammates even though he had worked with mafia before. So, why should the killer have done so when recruited? In the end, my point wasn't about dictating how people should play with a role. I just wanted to point out this has happened before. Maybe not as obvious as fast as it happened this game with a player going against his role.
My point is that what he did was make sacrifices useless which is what I think the biggest problem is. Thatguy and Spak will argue that Spak wasn't fully betraying the townies but their efforts to do this, such as show DAaaMan64 and Kashogistogi were townies to make people realize that Thatguy was mafia, didn't make much sense. Let's face it, by the third day, everyone was ready to vote out Spak, another townie, which would give the mafia the game. Spak was taking the blows for the whole mafia and protecting the mafia from getting voted out by making himself a stronger target each night. How does that work towards survival?
The Flaw of the Survival Arguement
If a mafia member is investigated by the cop, should he start revealing the identities of his other mafia members to ensure he survives? After all, if he still lives and wins, that will mean a victory for the whole mafia. So, that makes it good right? Likewise, by being a townie and helping confuse fellow townies and get them to vote one another out is all right since it means your survival and eventually, you should be able to weed out the mafia. But if your killing townies instead of the mafia, how will you get the numbers? Forget that. What matters is that I didn't die. I may not have won but I didn't die.
There is no moral code and the truth is, no really does have to play for the win and sometimes people don't. That's why we have things like the suicide bomber and the killer. I'm not going to argue that everyone must play for the win and follow their victory condition. But I will argue this. The survival arguement that Thatguy is promoting in Spak's defense is weak. Let's not forget that Spak was killed by the mafia on the winning hit. So, I survived the game by working with the mafia and just before the mafia won with my help, I die. Way to survive.
How I Would Have Handled This
You'd be better off in saying that "I didn't play this game to win but I see that others did. I just wanted to try something different and experiment in the game. Sorry it caused hard feelings. I didn't realize people were relying on me so much. The experiment backfired bigtime and I accept that I have some rough going ahead in future games." Done.
You may not think it was an error. You may have no problem with the moves you made. Other players may feel the same and may not care but at least reach out to the ones who do care and don't try to justify this as some kind of stand you were taking to show people can play however they want. That's not the case and that's what the arguement is becoming.
Spak also mentioned that this is another example that you can't always trust people in mafia games. True enough and that's something everyone should know by now. The problem is, this situation ws created because Thatguy and Spak made a pact to trust one another and so didn't want to betray each other when they revealed their roles. If this is an example that you can't always trust people in mafia games, you could have done that by betraying Thatguy.
Then I think of games like Mario Kart Mafia where implicit trust was given and yet by the end, I was facing death despite being wholly innocent and truthful the whole time. We were on the same side in that game. Yet, in a game where you are on opposite sides, you work harder to protect a known enemy. It's inconsistant behaviour. So, I wouldn't try to make a lesson out of it either. I know Spak has done a bit of what I'm suggesting, saying he won't do it again, but that message is lost with his explanations of why he did what he did.
So, in summary: I would have just apologized, taken the anger I knew was coming and no justifications. Let everyone release the rage, take responsibility and move on.
One Last Thought in Spak's Defense
If this was reversed and it was Thatguy or even myself who had betrayed the townies, there'd still be some anger but I don't think it would be as severe because people never really trust us in the first place. It's almost something they would expect and be mentally prepared for in a way. Every game I play, even when I'm being honest with people, I still get messages that they still don't trust me. But, because it was Spak who has done this, I think there might be more outrage. He's not someone who is known for bold moves or crazy antics and so it comes across worse because it seems like an excuse to say it was just an experiment and for fun.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Pale on September 26, 2008, 11:01:41 AM
Reading this, I'm glad I didn't play this round.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 26, 2008, 02:39:09 PM
I do not want to get into this argument.
I just want to state...that is not my defense. I have admitted I have no defense, except I didn't expect the game to go the way it did.
I thought I was going to be killed day 1 or 2. It was not my original idea to do the PM and I think that is where I really made a bad decision that lacked judgment and the analysis of what it would do.
I just thought it would create a fun controversy that would lead to my death...that is it.
Am I in any way trying to justify my decisions. NO!!! I just don't think it is as big of a deal and complaint as other people.
thatguy has been very nice to support me in this issue, because he just saw it as a means to play the game in a different way.
In the end, even veteran of the game and decide to play in a way that ruins the game by accident. That is what happened. Just like many of our Mafia games come with special rules and new roles that don't help the game, but actually hurt it. I decided to play in a way, that although was not WRONG or against the rules...did take the fun out of the game for many other players.
I am truly sorry for this because I did not mean to do that, but I meant to add more fun.
Title: Re: Mafia XXVII: The Mad Science (af)Fair. Day 4.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 05, 2008, 01:24:29 AM
I didn't play this mafia, but I just want to say how saddened I am that this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Clayton_Forrester_(MST3K)) wasn't chosen for an icon. :(
