Be Excellent To Each Other

You're welcome

Well done Malc , and as a Scientist i dont care there was a Cylon on there , i think Curio's lack of involvement in the last few days and Lace's odd behaviour today may have been more of a hinderance to them - since it really should have been the Military trying to drive things.

I'm disapointed that the dead thread doenst have pages of people explaining to Kovacs what was going on :-)

Hello!
Did it really take everyone another 2 and a half days to kill me?

If that's in character and an attempt to try and coax some sympathy for you well done.

If its not I'm really sorry you feel that way - please don't take it like that its just a game (besides who else are we going to get to fix the fan inside Sweet Chariot and stress test the electrics ?)

PS, my 'proof' that LS isn't a cylon, and is probably telling the truth:

With reference to my nice color-coded list above, the previous vote state was:

zeppo: 1 (Squirt)
joans: 4 (Curiosity, LaceSensor, Mr Kissyfur, Malc)
lacesensor: 6 (Doctor Glyndwr, Mr Dave, Zeppo, Mr Russell, Joans, Zaphod64)

Now that to me looks very much like LS is not on the same team as the red guys, hence he is not a cylon.
THIS was why I threw a wobbly at that point and said LS was not one

*smug mode on*

(Malc is either not a cylon, or possibly is trying to avoid the block vote shenanigans, but I reckon 4 cylons is a good number, so they are all guilty)

So many times that I had to bite my tongue so as to not put myself at risk. I found it a wee bit frustrating.
Usually, I'd just barge in.

Explain away...

Mathematical study

Mafia is a complicated game to model, so most analysis of optimal play has assumed both: (a) that there are only townsfolk and mafiosi, and (b) that the townsfolk never have a probability of identifying the Mafia that is better than chance. Early treatment of the game concentrated on simulation,[78] while more recent studies have tried to derive closed-form equilibrium solutions for perfect play.

In 2006, the computer scientists Braverman, Etesami and Mossel proved that without detectives and with perfect players the randomized strategy is optimal for both citizens and mafia. They showed that when there are a large number of players and the win probability for either side is 50%, the innocent's lack of information means that the Mafia numbers need only double when the total number of players quadruple for the win chances to remain even.[66] With simulation, they confirmed that 50 mafiosi would have almost a 50% chance to win among 10,000 players, and that when m mafiosi remain among P total players:

The Mafia's chance of victory, W(m, P) \approx \frac{m}{\sqrt{P}} —When: \frac{m}{\sqrt{P}} \le 40%

As the Mafia's concentration increases beyond 40% of the square root of total players, the chance of a Mafia win grows less linearly with concentration, but converges to near certainty by the time P < 3m2.[79]

If any detectives are added to the game, Braverman et al. proved that the number of mafiosi must remain at a fixed proportion of the total number of players for their chance of winning to remain constant.[80]

In 2008, Erlin Yao of the Chinese Academy of Sciences derived specific analytical bounds for the mafia's win probability when there are no detectives, W(P, m) when m mafioso remain among P total players:[81]

\sqrt\frac{2(m-1)}{P} \le W(m, P) < \frac{m}{\sqrt{P}}

For example, four mafioso have a 50% to 100% chance of beating twelve innocents in this model.

When one is voted for they are closer to be Lynched. Being lynched is something to avoid, so a player who has a greater chance of being lynched will talk more to defend himself. The more someone talks, the more they reveal. If a Mafia member or other Scum reveals too much, he gives himself away. So voting for someone one thinks is a member of the mafia can lead to discovering who really is a member of the mafia.

However often one has no real information to go on at the beginning of a game. In this case, one cannot actually do better than acting at random -- and someone has to do something, or nothing will happen. It is assumed here that voting is the only action one can take at this stage of the game with any real effect.

(I did enjoy reading it. Maybe one day I'll get to play one past the first day)

I well enjoyed that. Having never been a baddie it's fascinating how differently the play style is and how difficult it is to still pretend to be a townie. I had a big grin on my face still knowing Malc was our last cylon though and only mr Dave voiced an inkling once he claimed as curious scientist.

But well done - well done - to mr dom for getting all 4 of us in one post right early on.

Similary, when you cocked up on day 3, I spotted it - I was the only one in a position to - but my survival was more important than killing you.

Yes !

And



I again hope this was just playing in character.

I now wish that I'd roleplayed the entire game as an electrician and spent the time fitting fans to the ship

Hmm - the rules are somewhat open for interpretation there, but I'd say that playing up to your (still available) epic win condition would mean that it wasn't - that's part of the reason they existed.

I'll make you Kaylee next time

So your saying your next game will be Firefly scum with the crew against Reavers ?

If there's a cylon left, it's Malc (and the only reason I have any doubts at all are his choice to investigate Squirt, someone practically guaranteed to be a scientist)

See for that one I wasnt sure if that was a double bluff , because as Malc *knew* who was really a scientist and who was not at that point i cant see why he 'blew' that investigation (or the timeout one) - he just had to pick names and say 'yes' they were telling the truth

You were a scientist, Curio - calling Malcout was against your win condition. That was our strategy all along - to rely on the scientists losing interest in finding the Cylons.

You were a scientist, Curio - calling Malc out was against your win condition.