TL Mafia XXXI
|Forum Index > TL Mafia|
On September 20 2010 05:48 drag_ wrote:
I see the sign-up list is full, but any chance there might be room for one more?
E: Nevermind, think I'll read a few more game before getting involved myself.
i think it may have been the 25/25 remaining thing that confused the poor guy though
On October 01 2010 15:03 Misder wrote:
Mafia games suck up soo much time though... oh well.
not for you they dont
On October 02 2010 01:59 kingjames01 wrote:
Nice, I think Sunday night will be okay for me. I'm going to be doing a lot of travelling these upcoming two weeks... I'll be flying out to Germany tomorrow, then to Denmark on Monday, back to Germany on Thursday and finally back to Canada on the 13th. Looking through a bunch of previous games it seems like there's a lot of work involved but I'll be as active as possible around my work. Hopefully, I won't get put on the ban list! =)
oh dear i hope that's not an inactivity excuse waiting to happen
On October 04 2010 22:59 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
I'm in favor of just voting random the first day. We have very little reason to go on to try and pick some one suspicious, and if anyone is suspicious before day 1 night, then they are most likely attempting to be suspicious(read the Village Idiot). The same holds true to voting an inactive. We would most likely end up killing a townie by voting random, but I don't think we really have a better option.
Once people start posting more we can have a more educated, organized, strategy, but for now I believe in chaos
chaos is the mafia way. It's far better to try and get something out of people by pressuring them and forcing them to talk than just going 'oh well we RNG'd a hit now no one needs to talk for the rest of the day'
On October 05 2010 14:05 Crisis_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 05 2010 12:39 ~OpZ~ wrote:
On October 05 2010 12:12 Bill Murray wrote:
I'm here. I just started my first day of work, so I don't know if I'll be able to be as active as I have in the past. Haven't gotten to read the thread yet, as I just worked a twelve hour day, but I promise I'll make an informed post tomorrow.
Yea, uh huh. I believe it, but come on BM!
On October 05 2010 12:03 Crisis_ wrote:
I'm in favor of voting inactives. It forces people to talk, leading to more communication. As mentioned before, communication is a step forward in helping us to determine scum.
I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie.
As for the DTs, I agree with most of this. A DT that plays the role of a proactive townie will be diffused amongst the crowd, instead of being a sitting duck to the mafia's quiet-sniping tendencies.
K, I'll be voting you in a second Crisis_....
How nice of you to vote for me. Glad to know that your vote will be a waste, since:
1. I am participating in active discussion to try to help town and give advice to the DT, I wouldn't be doing this if I were scum.
2. There are better candidates to be lynched, i.e. inactives.
you should probably keep in mind the vote is more likely nothing more than a place holder. However your defense is laughable.
1. I can think of alot more reasons that a mafia would want to do this than not, ie look pro town, after all the best way to look pro town is to BE pro town! Empty advice like this can't really harm you as a mafia, unless it was game breaking or something
2. It's great that you say there are people, but who are they?!!?
not saying they dont exist just, be stronger!
On October 05 2010 22:57 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
Here is the list of people that have not posted so far, so we can get an idea of who the inactives are
3. Bill Murray
I did not count 1 line post with no real content. A bit less then half the people have posted by now with most of the content from a small group of people(~OpZ~,Amber[LighT].Divinek and Misder and some others) If we choose to vote inactive, we currently have quite the pool to choose from
oh my god lol. I think besides just sheer probability alone there is more than likely at least one mafia member in there. Yes they are likely to be active on day1, but they are also likely to just stay above the threshold of activity to go unnoticed. When there's that many people inactive there's not much pressure to post more than that 1, 'im here post', and even then they wouldn't have to until some more of these people start posting.
SUP cynanmachine, you have the longest name so you stand out to me!
On October 06 2010 01:47 drag_ wrote:
Hi guys, I'm generally going to be posting around this time as it fits my time zone/schedule better
I don't really understand the point of voting inactives off? I'm new at this game, but surely that just makes it really easy for the mafia to avoid getting voted off for the first few rounds. Unless they're just really lazy...
the idea is to not truly hang someone that has barely posted. Put to pressure someone with the threat of killing them should they not speak up.
You are correct we NEVER get a mafia by killing someone that doesn't talk. This is because mafia have their buddies to help them out, and generally mafia players are more interested in the game so they will respond to pressure.
Now obviously responding to pressure is a trait of every role in the game. But too many times there is a mafia in the lower what 10% of activity that manages to slip by because NO ONE pressures them, this is what we want to avoid. It is very difficult to find a mafia member if they don't have to talk. And they only have one motivation to talk, not to die.
SPEAK UP BOY, if he doesnt ill have to look at someone that isnt going to get mod killed
On October 06 2010 02:14 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
CynanMachine is leading in votes, best start talking.
Also can you change your vote after submitting it. There is the "You cannot autochange your vote to the losing or winning bandwagon." rule but Im wondering if you can vote to really pressure some one into talking/trying to defend them self then If they do respond to your satisfaction change your vote to someone you think is more likely?
that is exactly the idea here actually. It makes someone look pretty bad if someone defends them self adequately and they keep their vote on that person
On October 06 2010 02:13 CynanMachae wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 06 2010 01:54 Divinek wrote:
At least you could get my name right (but I would blame it on that list <<)
And whoever said that I haven't posted, I did. It wasn't anytihng much useful but still.
Show nested quote +
On October 06 2010 00:21 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
On October 04 2010 15:13 CynanMachae wrote:
Well if random pick is chosen, how would you suggest doing it so that it's fair and objective?
And Misder, there isn't really much red hunting possible on the first day...
Is Cynan's only post thus far, so he is not completely inactive. However due to trying to convince people you cant hunt reds the first day, and trying to stay below the radar by posting the bare minimum, I am accusing him of being Mafia.
Defend yourself or get lynched.
I didn't say you can't do anything, but yes, one the first day it's very hard to find much because if red play somewhat semi-decently there isn't enough speculation around to have enough hints that someone is red. But sure if you have any suspisions share them.
I'm going to vote for an inactive as well, I don't like the random method, cause it does seems to me that its kinda hard to achieve anything with that. And like DrH said, saying that we are voting for an inactive force them to post, and force them to put stuff around that can be analyzed if they are indeed red. Voting agaisnt random doesn't accomplish anything cause it doesn't force them to do anything, just wait.
besides the fact that i think it would be hilarious if 1/3rd of the game got mod killed, i really dont want it to ruin the game . I have a feeling alot of these sneaky people will squeak in in the last few hours with one post and a vote, ive got my eye on you guys!
also im so sorry for fucking up your name, i hate when people do that. But i even looked at your name as i typed out my vote lol, you just have one of those names where people are so used to reading it as something else they will just see it as how they want.
Also you are now not going to be modkilled and still my best choice for a lynch. You'll have to convince me someone else is a better candidate than yourself.
On October 06 2010 05:04 SouthRawrea wrote:
At this point in time I would have to say that NuketheBunny's current strategy is pretty blatant and although I don't completely agree with how he's going about doing it, I would have to say I would like to get the more experience inactives to say something. I'm seeing some of the newer players being earnest in their attempt to play (ex: kingjames01) and this is a good sign. As they are much newer I wouldn't expect them to contribute as much.
We're only 3 pages into this game so far however and although I believe we're jumping the gun on the entire: lynch inactives. We are left with the problem of only 11 hours left in this game and plenty of inactives though so if we must come to an accord quickly for our lynch. Random Lynch is a good option in this game as we have many newer players which also explains the high number of inactives.
Oh god I'm terribly sorry about how unorganized this post is, I'm brain dead at the moment. :/
What I mean to say is that this day is short, we have lots of new players who are inactive, we should random lynch because many players haven't been given a proper chance to post as of yet.
you're resorting to random voting with 6 hours left in the day? -_-;;;;;;;; cord worm
i dont understand the system you're proposing, should everyone roll a random number? that'd be retarded, should everyone do it and then the person who gets the most similar RNGS be lynched? that's also bad because mafia can manipulate that. Even trying to scum hunt on very little information is alot better than being able to vote WITHOUT having to justify it, this is the way a scum would want to vote.
we get NOTHING from today if everyone just RNG's their vote. But if you have to justify what you're doing (all be it most people would be like ' he's inactive lols' ) it gives you something to go off of, something to compare to future instances, some SUBSTANCE.
If people are making small shitty posts to justify their votes, and then not removing them when the person is like HEY GUYS im here, and we should do this this and this. Then they look bad. But if they do this with your system you can just go LOL SRY I RNG'D. Or are you gonna re rng everytime someone speaks up? -___-
it's a terrible system
I know your play from many games south so i wont try to go too insane from one little thing like this but cmon man.
On October 06 2010 06:26 drag_ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 06 2010 06:05 kingjames01 wrote:
On October 06 2010 05:42 drag_ wrote:
It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation.
No, that's totally valid. However, I'm trying to play the game as best as I can with the little bit of information that has been revealed. Until I have more information, I think I will go with what I've got. Even if I'm wrong with what I'm saying, it invites a response so that we can learn more about what players are thinking, just like how it incited you to respond.
What I DO find interesting, however, is that you have only posted once previous to this message. Then, with this post you claim that you apparently don't like it when people try a "little too hard ... to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere [and are] skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation."
You came out of hiding just to point fingers and divert attention. Are you taking this game seriously enough to find a good reason to survive and win? If you are, then seriously consider what I have to say. If you can find a glaring logical error then say so. Don't insinuate with your slimy words just before the first vote and then disappear.
This just furthers my point about you. You act as if my post was all part of your multiple phase plan, before completely changing the subject to you accusing me of lying in wait and singling you out with my 'slimy words'. Once again another clear shift of blame from yourself towards me and another accusative post.
actually, actively singling out people and trying to beat them into the ground invokes quite a strong defense from the person who is being attacked, which is exactly what we need. Though I don't really like the shove it down your throat approach this early in the game, I see little wrong with taking the spot light to try and get people like you to do nothing but fan flames.
The only issue that arises from this type of play is convincing yourself too easily that the person is mafia and then trying to make connections where there aren't really any. More so the idea is to place a FoS on the person and follow up the crusade in following days when more evidence has proven itself useful.
Trying to hard is much much better than not trying enough. Because if someone is red and they're putting out alot of content we'll know it. But if someone like you is posting only once they see a chance to put light on someone, it makes it alot harder to analyze their thought process and go through and see their goals as anything other than fanning ala flames.
I don't think you're acting poorly yet, but keep an open mind that just taking jabs at people for stuff like this is extremely weak, however it is fine day one as it does, just like scum hunting invoke a response BUT it is worse because while the person you're attacking generates content, you yourself really arent. Oh my god that sentence had wayy too many commas.