|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Well what a great day to start. If you really feel I'm the mafia, then very well, feel that way. It's not like this is the first time people started accusing me as mafia due to 2 words in the description and I was actually a townie. But note this, if you fail to get a kill correctly and end up killing an innocent townie who was actually trying to help and be the most active, I can already see the downfall of this game. Of course it's far worse if you killed someone who actually had a significant role within the town, such as DT or a medic, though I'm not giving myself away at the moment. I don't mind dying from the get-go to prove everyone's illogical point that they think they are right about themselves but yet they only end up very wrong; because I can and will foresee that.
Get used to seeing this, this is excellent.
Taking this in a vacuum, note that outright denial is always deemed suspicious. If this had started with personal attacks against the accuser, and then vehement denials, they'd be headed off the gallows immediately.
This post pulls off a clever switch. It acknowledges that the poster could be mafia, in fact it refuses to debate the point entirely. This is clever, because the easiest people to decide to lynch are those who put up the biggest fight. By conceding the point immediately, this post makes it very hard to take issue with his character.
But it does, in fact, defend itself. Quite strenuously at that! See how swiftly it moves on to plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the reader, by lecturing us on the hazards of killing someone who is not mafia. Of course, the chances of randomly killing a mafia are greater than killing the medic or the detective, but since the chance exists, the post abuses the probability of first decision. Moreover, the post actually then outright implies that the poster is a medic or detective, something that (to me, in my experience) seems to almost ludicrously eliminate the poster from occupying either of these roles. Few people would ever be so careless with their positions if they actually were that position.
The final point of interest in this post is a corollary to the first clause. I'd call the technique 'martyrdom' because the poster professes to not mind dying if only to prove a point to all the noobs in this game. Of course, there are a mix of veterans and noobs here, and of course, the poster is playing to win. But by offering himself up for sacrifice, the poster knows full well that we will not pick such low hanging fruit. The post then, protects the poster by doing the exact opposite of what you might expect, by actually encouraging critics of the poster.
Be wary of these.
|
Just want to restate this because I think it's extremely important to help out the DTs at this point.
The DT can only check one person's clues rather than a list of clues made by more than one person, so what we need right now to maximize DT's ability is to have a single person to compile all the clues into one post and stating that it was based on his thinking which the DT can take advantage of that and exploit it where he can use his ability on that single post to the OP in which the OP has NO CHOICE but to give its answer.... that is one method I would go for to further help the DT..
So far, the clues that are wrapped up and given for each death that gives possible leads are the following:
1. d3_crescentia's suggestion of how no description on the first guy's death is a clue. I fully endorse this idea and took it to further saying it can possibly be someone who has a blank profile, giving from the list I had last page. Xelin is also a possibility just to point out that he modified his profile and added stuff in AFTER I made that list yesterday of blank profiles.
2. no_re's reference of that "quick attack" that leads to me.
3. no_re's other reference to d3_crescentia regarding the flower thing and the connection to its name and all....
At least we can start with those leads where if we have someone else to compile a really nice neat post that the DT can use the clue check on that post. Mine is still a little messy imo. But at this point of game, we gotta help out the hidden DTs out there to check the related clues.
|
On January 21 2010 02:30 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +
Well what a great day to start. If you really feel I'm the mafia, then very well, feel that way. It's not like this is the first time people started accusing me as mafia due to 2 words in the description and I was actually a townie. But note this, if you fail to get a kill correctly and end up killing an innocent townie who was actually trying to help and be the most active, I can already see the downfall of this game. Of course it's far worse if you killed someone who actually had a significant role within the town, such as DT or a medic, though I'm not giving myself away at the moment. I don't mind dying from the get-go to prove everyone's illogical point that they think they are right about themselves but yet they only end up very wrong; because I can and will foresee that.
Get used to seeing this, this is excellent. Taking this in a vacuum, note that outright denial is always deemed suspicious. If this had started with personal attacks against the accuser, and then vehement denials, they'd be headed off the gallows immediately. This post pulls off a clever switch. It acknowledges that the poster could be mafia, in fact it refuses to debate the point entirely. This is clever, because the easiest people to decide to lynch are those who put up the biggest fight. By conceding the point immediately, this post makes it very hard to take issue with his character. But it does, in fact, defend itself. Quite strenuously at that! See how swiftly it moves on to plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the reader, by lecturing us on the hazards of killing someone who is not mafia. Of course, the chances of randomly killing a mafia are greater than killing the medic or the detective, but since the chance exists, the post abuses the probability of first decision. Moreover, the post actually then outright implies that the poster is a medic or detective, something that (to me, in my experience) seems to almost ludicrously eliminate the poster from occupying either of these roles. Few people would ever be so careless with their positions if they actually were that position. The final point of interest in this post is a corollary to the first clause. I'd call the technique 'martyrdom' because the poster professes to not mind dying if only to prove a point to all the noobs in this game. Of course, there are a mix of veterans and noobs here, and of course, the poster is playing to win. But by offering himself up for sacrifice, the poster knows full well that we will not pick such low hanging fruit. The post then, protects the poster by doing the exact opposite of what you might expect, by actually encouraging critics of the poster. Be wary of these.
Once again, I do support and endorse your post. You saw my viewpoint and my train of thought exactly. This is the type of mindset we need in this type of game. Mafia or not, I would have made such comment has if the initial verdict had fallen on me. But yes, I'm playing to win (I mean who plays to lose? rofl), but I was implying and giving this message to everyone, especially the novices like you have stated. But since you were able to directly understand my statement there, I'm far curious of which what direction you would take regarding this. ^_^
|
On January 21 2010 02:30 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +
Well what a great day to start. If you really feel I'm the mafia, then very well, feel that way. It's not like this is the first time people started accusing me as mafia due to 2 words in the description and I was actually a townie. But note this, if you fail to get a kill correctly and end up killing an innocent townie who was actually trying to help and be the most active, I can already see the downfall of this game. Of course it's far worse if you killed someone who actually had a significant role within the town, such as DT or a medic, though I'm not giving myself away at the moment. I don't mind dying from the get-go to prove everyone's illogical point that they think they are right about themselves but yet they only end up very wrong; because I can and will foresee that.
Get used to seeing this, this is excellent. Taking this in a vacuum, note that outright denial is always deemed suspicious. If this had started with personal attacks against the accuser, and then vehement denials, they'd be headed off the gallows immediately. This post pulls off a clever switch. It acknowledges that the poster could be mafia, in fact it refuses to debate the point entirely. This is clever, because the easiest people to decide to lynch are those who put up the biggest fight. By conceding the point immediately, this post makes it very hard to take issue with his character. But it does, in fact, defend itself. Quite strenuously at that! See how swiftly it moves on to plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the reader, by lecturing us on the hazards of killing someone who is not mafia. Of course, the chances of randomly killing a mafia are greater than killing the medic or the detective, but since the chance exists, the post abuses the probability of first decision. Moreover, the post actually then outright implies that the poster is a medic or detective, something that (to me, in my experience) seems to almost ludicrously eliminate the poster from occupying either of these roles. Few people would ever be so careless with their positions if they actually were that position. The final point of interest in this post is a corollary to the first clause. I'd call the technique 'martyrdom' because the poster professes to not mind dying if only to prove a point to all the noobs in this game. Of course, there are a mix of veterans and noobs here, and of course, the poster is playing to win. But by offering himself up for sacrifice, the poster knows full well that we will not pick such low hanging fruit. The post then, protects the poster by doing the exact opposite of what you might expect, by actually encouraging critics of the poster. Be wary of these.
Positive-emotion trading aside, I'd also like to point out that we should be wary of you for kindly analyzing the thought process behind this post.
I'm glad we can all be intellectual here.
|
spelling and grammar error on my last post. I meant "started" not "stated" as I would normally edit my post to correct this.
Also the type of mindset I meant is both how I am thinking and how tree.hugger is thinking.
Lastly, I think I worded this incorrectly but in no way means was I trying to insult or call tree.hugger a noob. I wasn't trying to imply that at all, in case further misunderstanding occurs.
Epic fail for me, I meant "stated" not "started" so disregard my first comment...
On January 21 2010 02:44 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2010 02:30 tree.hugger wrote:
Well what a great day to start. If you really feel I'm the mafia, then very well, feel that way. It's not like this is the first time people started accusing me as mafia due to 2 words in the description and I was actually a townie. But note this, if you fail to get a kill correctly and end up killing an innocent townie who was actually trying to help and be the most active, I can already see the downfall of this game. Of course it's far worse if you killed someone who actually had a significant role within the town, such as DT or a medic, though I'm not giving myself away at the moment. I don't mind dying from the get-go to prove everyone's illogical point that they think they are right about themselves but yet they only end up very wrong; because I can and will foresee that.
Get used to seeing this, this is excellent. Taking this in a vacuum, note that outright denial is always deemed suspicious. If this had started with personal attacks against the accuser, and then vehement denials, they'd be headed off the gallows immediately. This post pulls off a clever switch. It acknowledges that the poster could be mafia, in fact it refuses to debate the point entirely. This is clever, because the easiest people to decide to lynch are those who put up the biggest fight. By conceding the point immediately, this post makes it very hard to take issue with his character. But it does, in fact, defend itself. Quite strenuously at that! See how swiftly it moves on to plant the seed of reasonable doubt in the mind of the reader, by lecturing us on the hazards of killing someone who is not mafia. Of course, the chances of randomly killing a mafia are greater than killing the medic or the detective, but since the chance exists, the post abuses the probability of first decision. Moreover, the post actually then outright implies that the poster is a medic or detective, something that (to me, in my experience) seems to almost ludicrously eliminate the poster from occupying either of these roles. Few people would ever be so careless with their positions if they actually were that position. The final point of interest in this post is a corollary to the first clause. I'd call the technique 'martyrdom' because the poster professes to not mind dying if only to prove a point to all the noobs in this game. Of course, there are a mix of veterans and noobs here, and of course, the poster is playing to win. But by offering himself up for sacrifice, the poster knows full well that we will not pick such low hanging fruit. The post then, protects the poster by doing the exact opposite of what you might expect, by actually encouraging critics of the poster. Be wary of these. Positive-emotion trading aside, I'd also like to point out that we should be wary of you for kindly analyzing the thought process behind this post. I'm glad we can all be intellectual here.
I'm glad you can also see it that way as well. ^_^
|
On January 21 2010 02:35 QuickStriker wrote:
So far, the clues that are wrapped up and given for each death that gives possible leads are the following:
1. d3_crescentia's suggestion of how no description on the first guy's death is a clue. I fully endorse this idea and took it to further saying it can possibly be someone who has a blank profile, giving from the list I had last page. Xelin is also a possibility just to point out that he modified his profile and added stuff in AFTER I made that list yesterday of blank profiles.
I don't believe this is exactly the case. Yes, there's no mention of how the first person died, and that may be a clue in and of itself. The locale may be enough of a clue to tell us something substantial as well, as it wasn't written in rhyme.
|
Quick what are you saying? It is these kinds of unclear lines of reasoning where you don't specifically lay out your argument that are suggestive of purposefully creating confusion amongst the townies.
You mention me by name, why? am i more likely to be a mafia because of that clue than any of the other people with blank profiles, Does my editing and explaining why afterwards make me more likely to be mafia?
Neither of those two assertions has any merit and i challenge you to make a clear and logical argument as to why.
That leaves me with possibilites then, you are annoyed that I have openly stated that i find you very suspicious and a possible mafia and in light of this have decided to name me as a kind of "i know you are but what am i" kind of defence. Of course you could have this reaction if you are a townie and upset about having suspicion cast on you this early because obviously no-one wants to die but for the record, with every post you make I consider you more and more red.
Also you and cresentia seem exceptionally like minded and supportive of each other and as such if one of you is red i would be inclined to believe the other one is as well.
But anyway my main point is this, I have provided clear reasons as for why I have named you as a suspicious person. Likewise please provide clear explanation for everyone to see and assess as for why you have named me, otherwise i suspect they may draw similar conclusions that i have.
|
Omg, I am so stupid, I accidently edited my last post.... dammit. The edit starts on the fourth sentence... Sorry about that..
|
On January 21 2010 02:49 XeliN wrote:
Quick what are you saying? It is these kinds of unclear lines of reasoning where you don't specifically lay out your argument that are suggestive of purposefully creating confusion amongst the townies.
You mention me by name, why? am i more likely to be a mafia because of that clue than any of the other people with blank profiles, Does my editing and explaining why afterwards make me more likely to be mafia?
Neither of those two assertions has any merit and i challenge you to make a clear and logical argument as to why.
That leaves me with possibilites then, you are annoyed that I have openly stated that i find you very suspicious and a possible mafia and in light of this have decided to name me as a kind of "i know you are but what am i" kind of defence. Of course you could have this reaction if you are a townie and upset about having suspicion cast on you this early because obviously no-one wants to die but for the record, with every post you make I consider you more and more red.
Also you and cresentia seem exceptionally like minded and supportive of each other and as such if one of you is red i would be inclined to believe the other one is as well.
But anyway my main point is this, I have provided clear reasons as for why I have named you as a suspicious person. Likewise please provide clear explanation for everyone to see and assess as for why you have named me, otherwise i suspect they may draw similar conclusions that i have.
I never said you were mafia nor was I suspicious of you. However, I did imply the fact that you broke one of the rules of not to edit profiles in which you did and I was merely pointing that out for future references. Please do not misunderstand me.
|
Another thing I would like to add is I was only supportive of cresentia and the few others posting here at the point because THEY ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO ARE ACTIVE RIGHT NOW making actual suggestions and comments. I mean out of all the 34 players in this game, I only see at most 5 people active... where the hell are the other 29 people?
Is that better of an explosive anger? Because it was.
|
Let's also look at it this way. There has yet to be a single vote on toward the voting thread of THIS mafia game compared to the other mafia voting thread that has 22 comments contrast to 2 comments on our game. Why do you think I am angry right now regarding of lack of activeness of this one compared to other?
I mentioned it again and again, I want this game to move quicker like the other game. Maybe not as equally quick but come on, why should I be the only one making like 50% of the posts of this game?
|
About the intention of not lynching anyone on the first day, well if i read the rules correctly, I don't think it's an option cause the mayor HAVE to choose some1.
So, I would like the election candidates to say who they plan on lynching if they get the mayor and why.
There's alot of time before the election happen, so I think that the mayor should choose the least active person to lynch at the time of the election.
Why? because I think that mafia memebers should play quietly in the begining, not all of them, but a good part of them hae to stay hidden and not give away clues. There is also the risk of getting a green/blue.
Now, I think that the risk of getting a blue with this method is less likely than getting a green or a red.
Blue roles should be considered more exiting by new people, getting them to post more often. If you're green, on the other hand, well, you don't feel that exited anymore so you're less likely to post.
Now, if we're unlucky and get an inactive blue, well.. the guy was inactive anyways so it's not that much of a big deal.
In mafia case, picture this, you're new to the game, and you got the red role, the bad guy, what you're going to do? first, my guess would be some sort of cooperation and organisation starting between the members to decide the ways of action. And like I said, you will try not to give clues or get people to know you too soon. Of course there will be some loudmouth, probly some1 running in the elections for instance but the majority should be moderatly quiet.
Of course, it would be preferable to lynch a mafia of day1 but, let's face it, with so few clues and the lack of material posted we're not going to find one without a hudge stroke of luck.
Now if the candidate opt for this guideline, i recomend observing closely the post after his anouncement. My guts tell me that mafia memebers should be lurking this thread quite alot (you're exited about being a bad guy, but you can't say too much, but since you're exited you're still actively checking the thread) and would try to avoid a first day lynch by sudenly posting more. Even if there are not alot of a priori deductions, the candidates making some strong statement would shake the game a little and alow for more material to work with.
Also, when some1 die, do we get to know his role?
|
I agree with the above post where SagaZ states where the mayor choose the least active person. However, that is if the main public and majority of us wishes to as the mayor should take the will of the people. The mayor gets 3 votes contrast to 1 each of us, so if anything, the mayor must first take trust upon us or else we might even end up in a situation where the town became suspicious of the mayor for being the mafia (which is quite possible). The only problem right now is the lack of candidates as we only have like 2, and also the lack of activeness in this game where the main voices of this game at the moment are the minority...
On January 21 2010 03:03 SagaZ wrote:
Also, when some1 die, do we get to know his role?
Yes, the OP will give a juicy description of how he dies....... very juicy if it was by the town/mayor... ^_^
|
On January 21 2010 03:03 SagaZ wrote:
About the intention of not lynching anyone on the first day, well if i read the rules correctly, I don't think it's an option cause the mayor HAVE to choose some1.
So, I would like the election candidates to say who they plan on lynching if they get the mayor and why.
There's alot of time before the election happen, so I think that the mayor should choose the least active person to lynch at the time of the election.
Why? because I think that mafia memebers should play quietly in the begining, not all of them, but a good part of them hae to stay hidden and not give away clues. There is also the risk of getting a green/blue.
Now, I think that the risk of getting a blue with this method is less likely than getting a green or a red.
Blue roles should be considered more exiting by new people, getting them to post more often. If you're green, on the other hand, well, you don't feel that exited anymore so you're less likely to post.
Now, if we're unlucky and get an inactive blue, well.. the guy was inactive anyways so it's not that much of a big deal.
In mafia case, picture this, you're new to the game, and you got the red role, the bad guy, what you're going to do? first, my guess would be some sort of cooperation and organisation starting between the members to decide the ways of action. And like I said, you will try not to give clues or get people to know you too soon. Of course there will be some loudmouth, probly some1 running in the elections for instance but the majority should be moderatly quiet.
Of course, it would be preferable to lynch a mafia of day1 but, let's face it, with so few clues and the lack of material posted we're not going to find one without a hudge stroke of luck.
Now if the candidate opt for this guideline, i recomend observing closely the post after his anouncement. My guts tell me that mafia memebers should be lurking this thread quite alot (you're exited about being a bad guy, but you can't say too much, but since you're exited you're still actively checking the thread) and would try to avoid a first day lynch by sudenly posting more. Even if there are not alot of a priori deductions, the candidates making some strong statement would shake the game a little and alow for more material to work with.
Also, when some1 die, do we get to know his role?
Yes, when someone dies, we get to know his role.
For a while I also entertained the thought of lynching the most inactive, but in truth it doesn't really serve us altogether that much. Sure, we don't really lose anything if we hit a blue/green, but we really don't gain anything either. To be fair, I don't think we really have a choice either, so lynching the most inactive seems *safest*... I just don't see much of a benefit unless we get really, really lucky.
Also, it's possible that the mafia knows this line of thought and would be active posters. In one of the previous games, the GF had wormed his way into a trusted circle of blues and avoided detection until nearly the very end of the game.
If our DTs aren't at work figuring out who the clues point to (and convincing us while they're at it) then everything we have up to this point is wild conjecture based on whether or not people rub us the wrong way.
|
heh Sagaz interesting you raised that as I was just outside having a ciggarette thinking over the things in this thread and how there have already been claims made, suspcions cast e.t.c and was thinking it might be extremely intelligent for the mafia as a whole to simply not post much, rely on us creating so much confusion amongst ourselves that they do not need to try to provoke it or develop it.
I don't agree that we ought to lynch the person who has posted least in any way though and am also inclined to think that the mafia have not adopted this strategy of just letting the town fuck it up for themselves. Its worth considering however as it would be quite an intelligent ploy and also a kinda interesting social experiment ^^
|
Also, I saw the lack of content in some profiles.
I think that at the point we are right now, if we have to choose between lynching a no profile guy and a profile with content guy, the content should have the priority.
I'm saying this taking the GM point of view in this, you're making a mafia game and have to show creativeness and a clue in each mafia hit.
So who would you choose to be mafia? a guy without any info in his content so you will have to make clues entirely based on his name? Or the guy with the profile with the one you're able to make very smart clues that will make people go :O bisu mode.
another question, isn't there some way to look at pasts games made there?, like the first mafia games (I can only see the XV, XIV and XII edition, with some freestyle and mini editions)
|
On January 21 2010 03:12 XeliN wrote:
heh Sagaz interesting you raised that as I was just outside having a ciggarette thinking over the things in this thread and how there have already been claims made, suspcions cast e.t.c and was thinking it might be extremely intelligent for the mafia as a whole to simply not post much, rely on us creating so much confusion amongst ourselves that they do not need to try to provoke it or develop it.
I don't agree that we ought to lynch the person who has posted least in any way though and am also inclined to think that the mafia have not adopted this strategy of just letting the town fuck it up for themselves. Its worth considering however as it would be quite an intelligent ploy and also a kinda interesting social experiment ^^
Maybe... but not necessarily. We get to lynch one person per day; they can kill up to three people currently (or do they have to? I'm operating under the assumption that they don't have to kill anyone if they don't want to). It's possible that the first lynch will hit a blue role and screw it up, but it shouldn't be an unwinnable situation.
If the mafia refuses to kill people, then we can do the same and refuse to lynch as our DTs do extended checks on the clues we have. I think the mafia *has* to try kill people to keep us occupied.
Now the real issue is if we can reason through things properly...
|
On January 21 2010 00:55 d3_crescentia wrote:
Checking up on people with large postcounts for veterancy using the search feature...
~OpZ~ - TL Mafia II, III
JoxxOr - TL Mafia II, Ace's Mafia World
decafchicken - TL Mafia II, III
l10f - Pyrry's Mafia Game
Fishball - a lot of them (II, III, V, VII, and more)
QuickStriker - TL Mafia VII
One more to add to this list that I initially overlooked... iLoveKT has also played before, in TL Mafia XII at the very least.
|
With regards to the first murder (L's) why is it people have so hastily concluded there are no clues?
To my eyes we have references of docks and tide i.e. sea/ocean, which might be a clue pointing towards Fishball
Also
"Following it straight to a cave, he saw a body at its opening, tenderly embraced by the incoming tide."
There is a player called softer
These may be a bit too straightforward, but surely they are worth some consideration? Also since both of these guys have yet to post; it will be good to hear their opinions on the matter.
|
On January 21 2010 03:47 dozko wrote:With regards to the first murder (L's) why is it people have so hastily concluded there are no clues? To my eyes we have references of docks and tide i.e. sea/ocean, which might be a clue pointing towards FishballAlso "Following it straight to a cave, he saw a body at its opening, tenderly embraced by the incoming tide." There is a player called softerThese may be a bit too straightforward, but surely they are worth some consideration? Also since both of these guys have yet to post; it will be good to hear their opinions on the matter.
Thanks for the enlightening post. I didn't mean to say that the first murder contained zero clues, just that there was nothing as far as manner of death goes. At the same time, I simply wasn't picking up on things. As for water-related things, there's also drinking.
What makes me doubt, though is that the section is written in segments of both prose and poetry. My thought is that the prose would indicate what the real clues were, so you might be right about the tender-softer connection. Of course, I could be completely off-base with the poetry/prose thing, so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
