|
Also, before I go to sleep, Phrujbaz is mafia.
|
On February 15 2010 09:35 Nikoner wrote:
Also, before I go to sleep, Phrujbaz is mafia.
ughhhh
justify plzzzzz
|
On February 15 2010 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:35 Nikoner wrote:
Also, before I go to sleep, Phrujbaz is mafia. ughhhh justify plzzzzz
He's not serious. Nikoner said the same thing last game, if I remember correctly they have an SC rivalry...
|
On February 15 2010 09:34 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Caller the issue with your plan is getting ahold of a real dt. Ideally yes, the town circle is formed by the bgs who are the only 100% for sure role when checked. You first need the mayor to get in contact with a dt, you also need to hope to god that not all bgs are red, hope the dt doesnt die, etc...
Once the dt has done his job, the circle is formed and the fun begins. Getting it started is the hard part.
That's just it though: in this game the DT doesn't have to worry about dying as much purely because Mafia has a fixed, low KP, and we have medics. Suppose a DT roleclaims publicly that he is a DT. The mafias can't afford to hit him in the event that he is an actual DT because they will lose a KP that would be better served hitting an opposing mafia. More importantly, since mafia don't have to kill town to win, they don't need to hunt down all the blue roles immediately-in fact, they would like to have a DT to give them role checks to narrow down their search for the opposing mafia. So there's no real need for the DT to fear, especially because we have enough medics to negate any deaths. I already explained why its unlikely for mafia to pose as a DT purely because there's too much risk and not enough reward for the mafia team because there are two mafias. The game changes completely in this scenario so a lot more can be done than in a normal town vs. one mafia game.
|
Apologies, I meant Phrujbaz said the same thing last game about Nikoner
|
On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow.
Purely around Ace?
I've named Ace, Mystlord and Empyrean, and if you bothered to read anything since last night you'd know that I'm most certain of Empyrean.
The fact that I spent so much time talking about Ace's clues were because other people decided to do things like you did and attempt to discredit clue analysis without actually looking at the content of the analysis itself.
Once more, and its the last time I'll ask you. What specific clue link was overanalyzed? To add to the question; As a prior host, you should understand the basics of clue creation, so why did you ignore my request for specificity when you're one of the best placed players to deal with it in the face of my repeated attempt to get people to challenge the validity of the interpretation itself?
Perhaps finally; Why tell other people to compile lists? You aren't a shitty player. Make them yourself. I'm pretty sick of people giving halfhearted statements like yours praising a path of action then not doing any work in that path.
I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link
Make one. I did the majority of the work for you already. Feel free to make yourself useful.
|
On February 15 2010 09:37 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:35 Nikoner wrote:
Also, before I go to sleep, Phrujbaz is mafia. ughhhh justify plzzzzz He's not serious. Nikoner said the same thing last game, if I remember correctly they have an SC rivalry...
oh i see lol
|
On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere.
We shouldn't lynch the most talked about connection; we should lynch the most certain connection. These are two different things. I don't give a shit if someone doesn't reply if the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming. The only thing your suggestion does is allow people the option of ignoring a topic instead of dealing with it, which is VERY, VERY bad.
|
On February 15 2010 09:41 L wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. We shouldn't lynch the most talked about connection; we should lynch the most certain connection. These are two different things. I don't give a shit if someone doesn't reply if the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming. The only thing your suggestion does is allow people the option of ignoring a topic instead of dealing with it, which is VERY, VERY bad.
Do you feel the connection is stronger to Ace or Empyrean?
I feel it's stronger to Empyrean because no one else could possibly fit the clue profile it seems. Multiple players could fit the killer you have said is Ace, even if they don't fit it as well.
|
On February 15 2010 09:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:32 meeple wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I sorta agree... I got caught in this type of trap myself, where I so firmly beleived in tredmasta's guilt based on what I thought was a strong clue and it turned out he was a vigilante. I see the clue connection, but I'm wary of the level of conviction you have in it. As mafia in the previous game, I was aware who that clue referred to, but I was surprised you thought tredmasta was a stronger connection than flamewheel91. But L has said many times he is perfectly willing to consider alternatives. Ace's aggressive defense, redtooth's inconsistent and in one case completely incorrect arguments, and Ace's refusal to refute the central point of L's accusation doesn't exactly help out.
That screams out behaviourally that he is red  . He stand a very high chance of being mafia, and your point there is more reason to lynch him to me than the clues.
On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere.
My reasoning for wanting to avoid day 1 clues for now is basically this. Say we red herring someone, they die and flip townie, the persons defense will be "whoops my bad day 1 clues"
If he does get a red (note this could be a lucky guess or an actual link, we wont know for certain unless those "links" disappear from future posts) the town will have a sense of trust in the person that isn't neccesarily earned. Its luck.
Lynching someone off a list of inactives, or inactives that fit the themes of mafia's we have established does two things.
It removes someone from a list who was considered red,
It removes someone who isn't contributing and helps prevent mafia from hiding among inactives.
I am all for lynching someone day 1 based off behaviour, and would say that you can make strong cases based off clue accusations on why you should lynch someone (reactions tell alot). Just lynching off of day 1 clues for the seemingly strongest connection seems strained.
|
On February 15 2010 09:41 L wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. We shouldn't lynch the most talked about connection; we should lynch the most certain connection. These are two different things. I don't give a shit if someone doesn't reply if the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming. The only thing your suggestion does is allow people the option of ignoring a topic instead of dealing with it, which is VERY, VERY bad.
My argument is referring to the first day, when there aren't any certain clue connections. Obviously I'm not advocating ignoring certain links later in the game, but right now, the weight of evidence isn't overwhelming about anyone
|
On February 15 2010 09:37 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Caller the issue with your plan is getting ahold of a real dt. Ideally yes, the town circle is formed by the bgs who are the only 100% for sure role when checked. You first need the mayor to get in contact with a dt, you also need to hope to god that not all bgs are red, hope the dt doesnt die, etc...
Once the dt has done his job, the circle is formed and the fun begins. Getting it started is the hard part.
That's just it though: in this game the DT doesn't have to worry about dying as much purely because Mafia has a fixed, low KP, and we have medics. Suppose a DT roleclaims publicly that he is a DT. The mafias can't afford to hit him in the event that he is an actual DT because they will lose a KP that would be better served hitting an opposing mafia. More importantly, since mafia don't have to kill town to win, they don't need to hunt down all the blue roles immediately-in fact, they would like to have a DT to give them role checks to narrow down their search for the opposing mafia. So there's no real need for the DT to fear, especially because we have enough medics to negate any deaths. I already explained why its unlikely for mafia to pose as a DT purely because there's too much risk and not enough reward for the mafia team because there are two mafias. The game changes completely in this scenario so a lot more can be done than in a normal town vs. one mafia game.
I was actually going to post a similar idea but caller beat me too it. I think that our DT's shouldn't be in alot of danger this game because mafia want to use the DT's not kill them. (unless they are trying to eliminate the town). I think our focus now should be towards getting one or two confirmed DT's so they can start a circle of trust with townies they role-check. This would allow the town a greater sense of security, because the mafia wouldn't waste their time on medic protected DT's and confirmed townies.
|
On February 15 2010 09:43 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:32 meeple wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I sorta agree... I got caught in this type of trap myself, where I so firmly beleived in tredmasta's guilt based on what I thought was a strong clue and it turned out he was a vigilante. I see the clue connection, but I'm wary of the level of conviction you have in it. As mafia in the previous game, I was aware who that clue referred to, but I was surprised you thought tredmasta was a stronger connection than flamewheel91. But L has said many times he is perfectly willing to consider alternatives. Ace's aggressive defense, redtooth's inconsistent and in one case completely incorrect arguments, and Ace's refusal to refute the central point of L's accusation doesn't exactly help out. That screams out behaviourally that he is red . He stand a very high chance of being mafia, and your point there is more reason to lynch him to me than the clues. Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. My reasoning for wanting to avoid day 1 clues for now is basically this. Say we red herring someone, they die and flip townie, the persons defense will be "whoops my bad day 1 clues" If he does get a red (note this could be a lucky guess or an actual link, we wont know for certain unless those "links" disappear from future posts) the town will have a sense of trust in the person that isn't neccesarily earned. Its luck. Lynching someone off a list of inactives, or inactives that fit the themes of mafia's we have established does two things. It removes someone from a list who was considered red, It removes someone who isn't contributing and helps prevent mafia from hiding among inactives. I am all for lynching someone day 1 based off behaviour, and would say that you can make strong cases based off clue accusations on why you should lynch someone (reactions tell alot). Just lynching off of day 1 clues for the seemingly strongest connection seems strained.
I don't understand your reply, does "he" refer to L or Ace and everything from "your point" onward seems like it's missing a few words
|
On February 15 2010 09:46 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:43 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:32 meeple wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I sorta agree... I got caught in this type of trap myself, where I so firmly beleived in tredmasta's guilt based on what I thought was a strong clue and it turned out he was a vigilante. I see the clue connection, but I'm wary of the level of conviction you have in it. As mafia in the previous game, I was aware who that clue referred to, but I was surprised you thought tredmasta was a stronger connection than flamewheel91. But L has said many times he is perfectly willing to consider alternatives. Ace's aggressive defense, redtooth's inconsistent and in one case completely incorrect arguments, and Ace's refusal to refute the central point of L's accusation doesn't exactly help out. That screams out behaviourally that he is red . He stand a very high chance of being mafia, and your point there is more reason to lynch him to me than the clues. On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. My reasoning for wanting to avoid day 1 clues for now is basically this. Say we red herring someone, they die and flip townie, the persons defense will be "whoops my bad day 1 clues" If he does get a red (note this could be a lucky guess or an actual link, we wont know for certain unless those "links" disappear from future posts) the town will have a sense of trust in the person that isn't neccesarily earned. Its luck. Lynching someone off a list of inactives, or inactives that fit the themes of mafia's we have established does two things. It removes someone from a list who was considered red, It removes someone who isn't contributing and helps prevent mafia from hiding among inactives. I am all for lynching someone day 1 based off behaviour, and would say that you can make strong cases based off clue accusations on why you should lynch someone (reactions tell alot). Just lynching off of day 1 clues for the seemingly strongest connection seems strained. I don't understand your reply, does "he" refer to L or Ace and everything from "your point" onward seems like it's missing a few words
He refers to Ace.
Ace's defense of the accusations is more scummy than the accusation itself. However, as L and Ace always argue back and forth, perhaps hes just sick of defending himself from L?
|
On February 15 2010 09:43 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2010 09:41 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:34 [NyC]HoBbes wrote:On February 15 2010 09:29 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:25 L wrote:On February 15 2010 09:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 09:06 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On February 15 2010 09:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On February 15 2010 08:53 DoctorHelvetica wrote:A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED or, why I now agree with L Initially I made the mistake of strategizing as I would in a game with 1 mafia family against 1 town and a relatively small number of mafia (say 8 or less) I agreed with Ver thinking "clue analysis will become stronger as clue profiles build on mafia." I know that in Incognitos last game, he used a set order of clues. The first day was myself and keit, then derfboy, phrujbaz, etc. etc. Eventually it repeated and went back to keit, this made the clues on him much stronger. By about the 3rd or 4th day, the town now had a much stronger clue profile on a single mafia and the town could have lynched him a bit more securely. In this game, there are 20 mafia. I assume kills will overlap (meaning Mafia and Yakuza both hit the same target) and medics will eventually do their thing, meaning we might not even get 6 clues a day. If there were exactly 6 kills a night, by the 4th day we would have a "clue profile" with multiple clue sets on a single mafia member. Either we ignore clues completely because of this, or we start analyzing them from Day 1 onward. Unless of course, Incognito decides not to go in a specific order, meaning that we might get multiple clues on a single mafia very early and much more often. But I think that is unlikely. It is an important point. However, as someone who likes clue analyzing. Let me give you an example of day 1 clues should be done. Discussed (yay) but don't actively lynch someone based off of it, its not reliable. You need time to build your profiles of people. Day 1 clues start the process of building mafia profiles. You can usually easy pin in family games, which family is responsible for which killings. You then label them mafia family A, and mafia family B. As clues are given, you put themes under each mafia heading. The more time that goes by, the more you have, the better your chances of linking to someone. Using day 1 clues, you have things that are red herrings, as well as some things that are clues. I enjoy seeing L looking at them, but he looks more like hes pushing to get ace lynched than actually look at the clues. The whole theme of horsemen (at the moment to me) is moot. Things like darkness, or moonlight/blinding, could indeed be clues. However, without more days worth of clues, its harder to know if it is or not. Its why Camlito and MTF post very little analysis until they have solid leads. Until then its wild speculation. Chances are that incog will just link more than 3 members of a family per night, or hell, we are getting 6 mafia per night in clues anyway, we could get really lucky on one of them later, or he could reuse one from day 1 in day 2, etc... Day 1 clues are deff important, but moreso down the line than now. My argument is that it will take so long to build clue profiles that it will become useless. Doing things like seperating killers into families is all well and good though. Thing is, in a game with this many killers, for all we know, incog could be going 4-5 members a family in clue sets, or he could be doing one per kill, etc... As people die off you also get a good indicator of whos red so on and so forth. Its not a fast process in clues, it never is. Over analyzing things like L is, can pay off for sure, but it can also create bandwagons that off us faster. The greatest thing it has done so far this game is get alot of people talking, and which has given us alot of insight into peoples behaviour Explain how even super rudimentary linking is 'over' analyzing? Actually, explain what you mean by overanalyzing using specifics, because it seems like you're trying to discredit some of the only tangible work being done without actually dealing with any of the arguments. I discredit the fact that you have centered almost purely around ace? You spent time linking almost exclusively to him. You want him to be red, or just want him dead. However, instead had you spent time building themes for each killer then linked to multiple people based on that, its not as bad. I say this as, by pushing for one specific person on day 1 clues linking everything imaginable to them eventually you will get something that sticks. Do your connections make sense overall, Yes, could they all be red herrings however, Yes. I would rather instead see a list of people matching descriptions of each link and then off the most retarded or inactive of the bunch. You just seem to be pushing a vendetta overall however, it makes it harder to believe or follow. I think that while the connections could be red herrings, we should lynch whichever connection has generated the most discussion, not whichever connection links to the most irritating or inactive poster. What good does it serve us to lynch someone who is connected to the clues but hasn't created any controversy, or any meaningful argument? We don't gain any information about other players, because no other players have made arguments about them. Lynching an inactive who hasn't posted a defense, or who no one has posted in defense of, is akin to picking a lynch name out of a hat, regardless of which way it flips its not leading us anywhere. We shouldn't lynch the most talked about connection; we should lynch the most certain connection. These are two different things. I don't give a shit if someone doesn't reply if the weight of the evidence against them is overwhelming. The only thing your suggestion does is allow people the option of ignoring a topic instead of dealing with it, which is VERY, VERY bad. Do you feel the connection is stronger to Ace or Empyrean? I feel it's stronger to Empyrean because no one else could possibly fit the clue profile it seems. Multiple players could fit the killer you have said is Ace, even if they don't fit it as well.
While I think that Empyrean fits the clue profile fairly well, perhaps closer than Ace, Empyrean has rarely posted, and even if he is red it doesn't give us too much to go on. But if Ace is red, we get quite a bit more information since he was alot more active here.
Regardless, If I had to choose who I'm more sure is red, it'd probably be Empyrean.
|
Did Empyrean have a profile before? It is pretty much blank right now...
|
Blatantly copied from flamewheel in the voting thread:
Vote Tally for Mayor/Pardoner
[QUOTE]On February 15 2010 09:41 flamewheel91 wrote:
Vote Tally for Mayor/Pardoner
BloodyC0bbler Votes: 0
Chezinu
citi.zen Votes: 7
Chenzinu
Fishball
Faronel
DoctorHelvetica
MasterDana
Chezinu
dozko
[NyC]HoBbes
789
l10f Votes: 1
Malongo
DoctorHelvetica
meeple Votes: 0
Bill Murray
Ver Votes: 4
BloodyC0bbler
Fulgrim
Bill Murray
Amber[LighT]
Vivi57
Ace Votes: 2
Caller
Abenson
redtooth Votes: 1
Chezinu
Chezinu
L Votes: 5
Iaaan
~OpZ~
Madnessman
Zato-1
Scamp
DoctorHelvetica Votes: 2
citi.zen
Fulgrim
Abstain
sidesprang
l10f
redtooth
Ace
Mystlord
Ver
Nikoner
ShoCkeyy
QuickStriker
johnnyspazz
Phrujbaz
So it appears that Citi.zen is in the lead with 7 votes and then L with 5. I am a little concerned with voting for citi.zen solely based on his last game (which admittedly was well done). It is interesting that many candidates seem almost ignored completely by the votes, and assuming some mafia have voted yet, it seems that the votes are polarized in a few areas.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Okay people lets consider a few important ideas that are often overlooked that need to be taken into account soon.
There is absolutely zero reason to vote for Ver. We all know what happened last time he ran for office, I will summarize for those who are unfamiliar:
Ver: "waaa waaa I hate my life soooo many people PMing me waaa waaaa Ace Ace L Ace waa waaa please modkill me waaaa"
Point being, if you are town there is no reason to want Ver in office. If Ver is on the town side, he's only going to rage quit in two days. If Ver is mafia, you don't want a mafia in office. Don't elect someone who is going to cop out a third of the way through the game. At any rate, he has only half-heartedly made a campaign for office, I don't think he even wants to be elected anyways. Lots of people in the thread have been reinforcing their arguments with players' behavior in past games. Well, Ver's behavior in past games when he is elected is to rage quit. If you are one of these people that uses arguments like these, don't vote for Ver.
As I am sure someone else will do it, there seems to me to be a boatload of people who have yet to post or who have only made one or two posts (worthless posts might I add, for example OH HI IM HERE IMMA GO READ THE THREAD AND CATCH UP). As it has been correctly pointed out before, the mafia is going to be hiding among these inactive people. We have seen clearly in past games how the town goes ballistic killing itself while the mafia sits back and laughs. Lets make sure we keep track of all these people not contributing.
Okay, anyone who thinks we should kill Bill Murray is a complete idiot. Yes, that means you redtooth and DoctorHelvetica. And also laaan although you haven't explicitly said anything. Even BM pointed out that if he was mafia, he'd have other mafia members telling him what to post and how to do it. He is obviously way too incompetent where that would be the case this game. Furthermore, there are a bunch of inactive people, if he was mafia, I'm sure he'd be sitting right in that pool.
Remember guys, this is online mafia on teamliquid. This means that the teams are stacked for balancing issues (in other words, mafia members are not chosen at random). In a previous game where all of the veteran players where on the townside, the mafia got raped hard. With the addition of two mafia families, we can be reasonably sure that at least one, probably a few, of the veterans is mafia. While L's posts are almost all worth ignoring, he wants to kill Ace, who is a veteran, and thus we have to slog through his nonsensical posting. But killing off Ace is definitely something the town should highly consider. Perhaps you think Ace is too godly to kill off yet. If so, Ver has good analysis of BC, of which should be considered.
Remember guys, a veteran on the mafia side is a huge threat. They have the power to organize the mafia to victory. A mafia without a veteran is relatively helpless. On the contrast, the town can make do without a veteran. In fact, lots of times veterans hurt the town more than they help (I could site numerous examples, but I'm sure you all know). It's really easy for a novice player to step up as a green/blue and lead the town to victory. Heck I have nearly pulled this feat off in my first two games when I correctly found over 50% of the mafia. And I definitely pulled it off without any so called "veterans". It's clear that killing veterans is the right course of action as we could potentially deal a substantial blow to the mafia.
|
On February 15 2010 09:51 789 wrote:
Did Empyrean have a profile before? It is pretty much blank right now...
He posted a while back saying he doesn't have a password to change his profile. The connection to clues was based on his name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyrean
|
kk, that's what I thought you meant.
Ace's arguments are circular and a bit irrational. L is keeping it objective and focusing the attention on what matters, the clue analysis.
Ace is trying to divert attention away from that and making unnecessary personal attacks on L. Suspicious behavior. I'm more certain that Ace is mafia at this point than Bill Murray and if I am elected, I will lynch Ace.
Bill Murray is the "safe" choice, but if he flips green we learn nothing. If he flips red, Ace/redtooth are suspicious imo, but we learn absolutely nothing if he was green other than he played badly yet again. Considering his play in the last game, it now seems more likely that he is just a bad townie. That "other mafia godfather" was initially very incriminating, but after discussing with him in PM and arguing with him a bit I don't think he's mafia at all. If he was, he'd have no reason to get angry and flame me in PM unless he is literally the worst mafia player ever.
If Ace is green we get a lot more information. Personally I don't feel it would make L suspect because his accusations against him were all based on the clues, but we may be able to cross a lot of potential mafia off of our list.
If he is red, Bill Murray, redtooth, and people who just immediately voted for him/defended him without thinking about the arguments would fall under some degree of suspicion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
