Ok, next on the list:
LSB
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote:
where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Flamwheel/Incog forgot to send me who my teammates were, can you PM me them? Thanks! On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable. On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote:
If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster? On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote:
Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections All Spam, somewhat funny spam, but still spam. Not helpful.On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. His first good post. Similar to Pandain, he points towards inactives as the suggested lynch of the day. Common knowledge that this is a good idea, but no harm to repeat. Nothing out of the ordinary here, solid suggestions imo.On December 27 2010 11:18 LSB wrote:
Lets say Coagulation tells Doctor H that he is the medic.
That's a claim
Let's not do that this game On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote:
Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:26 ilovejonn wrote:There's already a rule to prevent inactives? Modkills:
Inactivity has been a problem in every mafia game so far. Inactivity is most easily defined as failure to vote. If you do miss a vote, you will be modkilled. Special consideration will be exercised if a player in danger of being modkilled by this manner has been an active contributor in the thread. If something comes up and you know you will miss the vote, PM me in advance about it to let me know and you will be spared. Remember again: abstaining votes are NOT allowed. And once again, flaming is not tolerated. Keep it civil, or else you will receive a quick lightning bolt to the back of the head. Furthermore, you must post at least once in this thread per game cycle (from the start of the night to the end of the next day) to avoid being modkilled. Simply voting doesn't work. This is to prevent lurkers from lurking. Unless you mean you have to post a lot to not be labeled as an inactive. Check out Pokemafia. Basically the entire mafia team, except for DCXLIV and Kavdragon posted once a day, and made sure they voted. That's what lurking is. Explains claiming to mango. Explains lurking to ilovejonn. Useful information I suppose, but nothing big. Doesn't provide any information about his alignment I don't think.On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote:
TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? On December 27 2010 12:06 LSB wrote:
Hahahahahhaha On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote:
Can I write one then? On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote:
That was at Incog/Flamewheel On December 27 2010 13:30 LSB wrote:EBWOP Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:24 TheMango wrote:On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote:
TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? Hmm, shows up for me, are you going to my profile page and clicking on my post count, or doing a search? both show up properly for me :o Yep, thats what I'm doing. It looks like there is a little time lag between what you post and what shows up in the search function. Maybe this is normal... Haven't actually tried searching for posts this recent before. Meh, more spam.On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers? What do you feel that the blues should do? On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote:
I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. Now something interesting, the Mr. Wiggles situation. He asks Wiggles to contribute, and defends Pandain's vote for him. He does say that there are better lynch candidate than wiggles, and reiterates that inactives are a better choice. I find it interesting that this point is not quite the same as what Pandain was advocating. Pandain suggested to lynch people that are posting, but not contributing. Spammers would be included in this. Whereas LSB wants to lynch people who are not posting at all. I have mixed feelings about this. People who are not posting could simply just be busy. I just got my role PM and saw the game for the first time about an hour ago. We can't let mafia get away with not posting though. I'd give people a bit more time however.On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Suggests abstaining: BAD. Seriously, abstaining from a vote is a terrible thing to do as town. Even in the worst case scenario where we lynch a blue (highly unlikely, at the very least they should claim before getting lynched), we still get information from the voting patterns. I really don't think this is a pro-town suggestion. On December 27 2010 13:39 LSB wrote:
5/5! And Merry Christmas to you too! On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L.
|
Ok, next on the list:
LSB
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote:
where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Flamwheel/Incog forgot to send me who my teammates were, can you PM me them? Thanks! On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable. On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote:
If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster? On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote:
Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections All Spam, somewhat funny spam, but still spam. Not helpful.On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste. His first good post. Similar to Pandain, he points towards inactives as the suggested lynch of the day. Common knowledge that this is a good idea, but no harm to repeat. Nothing out of the ordinary here, solid suggestions imo.On December 27 2010 11:18 LSB wrote:
Lets say Coagulation tells Doctor H that he is the medic.
That's a claim
Let's not do that this game On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote:
Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom? Of course. There's a few cases where claiming is okay. 1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens 2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out. 3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia. 4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan. The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:26 ilovejonn wrote:There's already a rule to prevent inactives? Modkills:
Inactivity has been a problem in every mafia game so far. Inactivity is most easily defined as failure to vote. If you do miss a vote, you will be modkilled. Special consideration will be exercised if a player in danger of being modkilled by this manner has been an active contributor in the thread. If something comes up and you know you will miss the vote, PM me in advance about it to let me know and you will be spared. Remember again: abstaining votes are NOT allowed. And once again, flaming is not tolerated. Keep it civil, or else you will receive a quick lightning bolt to the back of the head. Furthermore, you must post at least once in this thread per game cycle (from the start of the night to the end of the next day) to avoid being modkilled. Simply voting doesn't work. This is to prevent lurkers from lurking. Unless you mean you have to post a lot to not be labeled as an inactive. Check out Pokemafia. Basically the entire mafia team, except for DCXLIV and Kavdragon posted once a day, and made sure they voted. That's what lurking is. Explains claiming to mango. Explains lurking to ilovejonn. Useful information I suppose, but nothing big. Doesn't provide any information about his alignment I don't think.On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote:
TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? On December 27 2010 12:06 LSB wrote:
Hahahahahhaha On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote:
Can I write one then? On December 27 2010 12:43 LSB wrote:
That was at Incog/Flamewheel On December 27 2010 13:30 LSB wrote:EBWOP Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:24 TheMango wrote:On December 27 2010 11:43 LSB wrote:
TheMango, just a question, why is it that when I try stalking you some of you posts don't show up in your post history? Hmm, shows up for me, are you going to my profile page and clicking on my post count, or doing a search? both show up properly for me :o Yep, thats what I'm doing. It looks like there is a little time lag between what you post and what shows up in the search function. Maybe this is normal... Haven't actually tried searching for posts this recent before. Meh, more spam.On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers? What do you feel that the blues should do? On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote:
I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. Now something interesting, the Mr. Wiggles situation. He asks Wiggles to contribute, and defends Pandain's vote for him. He does say that there are better lynch candidate than wiggles, and reiterates that inactives are a better choice. I find it interesting that this point is not quite the same as what Pandain was advocating. Pandain suggested to lynch people that are posting, but not contributing. Spammers would be included in this. Whereas LSB wants to lynch people who are not posting at all. I have mixed feelings about this. People who are not posting could simply just be busy. I just got my role PM and saw the game for the first time about an hour ago. We can't let mafia get away with not posting though. I'd give people a bit more time however.On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Suggests abstaining: BAD. Seriously, abstaining from a vote is a terrible thing to do as town. Even in the worst case scenario where we lynch a blue (highly unlikely, at the very least they should claim before getting lynched), we still get information from the voting patterns. I really don't think this is a pro-town suggestion. On December 27 2010 13:39 LSB wrote:
5/5! And Merry Christmas to you too! On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. On December 28 2010 00:34 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 18:25 Ryuu314 wrote:On December 27 2010 17:57 ilovejonn wrote:On December 27 2010 17:46 Ryuu314 wrote:
Probably. I don't see how else the game could run otherwise.
7. Editing posts. Editing posts is not allowed for any reason. Anybody can see if you edited a post, and if you are caught, you will look suspicious. Editing will result in a warning. After that, you will be owned. I do have close connections to people who can check pre-edited material if you are truculent. Please do not edit; this is the one part of the site where it is okay to be double posting, even triple-posting. While I ask for everybody to post as concisely as possible, post again if you have to edit anything. Make sure you read all the rules. =) Oops x[ I remembered after I edited hahaha. I \was basically gonna say that Coag probably couldn't be mafia as the timing of his ban would probably prevent him from making hits? But then I looked up the time of his ban and it disproves my theory. The timing of his ban should have nothing to do with what role he may or may not be. Or rather what role I may or may not be. Well if his ban happened before roles were assigned and thus hits could be made, then there's no way he could've made a hit as he'd be in Disneyland. That said, his ban was after roles were assigned I believe so this point is moot. Remember this post? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:43 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 13:37 LSB wrote:On December 27 2010 13:31 seRapH wrote:
Since we're discussing lynching inactives (which at this point I mostly agree with unless something drastically better pops up) what are we using to define "inactive"? <5 posts? No meaningful posts? And how will we pick the inactive? Or should we all pick our own inactive to lynch? + Show Spoiler +Disclaimer: I don't believe that we'll actually lynch an inactive. How about Zero meaningful posts? If all they have is spam and one vote with an explination of "I agree". That would be an inactive Or if we seriously have no idea what to do, we could lynch someone about to be modkilled, a way to essentially abstain Except they could be replaced, not necessarily modkilled. Hmm... I wonder if the mafia would try to modkill one of their own members in hopes of getting the person replaced by DoctorH Ace did that back in insane. Well, we forced the mafia to find their own repacements, and Ace choose L. 40 Minutes Later http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179875#2Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 14:20 Coagulation wrote:
your sister hot?
User was temp banned for this post. Not a scum tell per say... but still... Meaningless postsOn December 27 2010 13:57 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote:
But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill. As for new players, don't worry to much about being inactive. As long as you try to play mafia and spend some time thinking and reading the thread, this won't ever be a problem. Just post you thoughts on the person currently being accused. And feel free to ask questions, in thread, PMing the hosts, or any of the Bootcamp helpers, and I'm always willing to help Some good advice for newbies. +1 to most of this. Post your thoughts on events and people as often as you can, but don't spam. Even if your thoughts are wrong, people will explain to you why. However I would say you should worry about being inactive. There will be plenty of material to work with, so you should always be able to post more than the bare minimum. Theres no excuse to lurk, and it only hurts town. On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:
On December 27 2010 18:34 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Also DT's shouldn't claim if they find a red and definitely not in PM either. Build a case on that person. Read through their posts and seriously consider them. Read them as though they are mafia, what are they doing to hurt/mislead the town and does it make sense? They might be a miller (there are probably 2, that is the normal count) and they might also have been framed.
When you checked someone and now they are mafia or are nearly certain you build a good case to get them lynched, you don't claim straight away because it's still possible the mafia won't hit you and if they do it become immediately apparent why you pushed so strong for a specific lynch which means the mafia have to do a lot of damage control especially if they tried to spread distrust/attack that DT.
DTs should be using mouths to claim if someone is red or not, it shouldn't be an issue since we can use PMs this game.
LunarDestiny's posts so far come off as the most scummy but that's just barely, no good target has presented itself yet to me for the lynch so I'll vote for myself. My work schedule is unpredictable and I don't want to get modkilled for it.
Hmm... Never noticed him
@LunarDestiny
On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves.
What do you think we should do about inactives then? Good points, calls out Lunar a small bit.On December 28 2010 00:43 LSB wrote:
On December 27 2010 19:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
On December 27 2010 19:53 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 18:57 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 27 2010 17:20 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Coag just got temp banned for two weeks, doch is in... there must be a conspiracy :/ do you really think that because that's really stupid On December 27 2010 18:13 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
So what's the infamy surrounding DoctorHelvetica? Would anyone care to enlighten me? Nothing I just always end up the center of attention in games whether I'm mafia or not and it always ends up hurting the town. No need to be so touchy, gosh it was just a joke. Several other people were making similar jokes so I don't really see why there is a problem and there's really no reason to flame out about it. Mr. Wiggles go and read through any game Drh has played... you'll see a) why drh is well known and b) why it's ironic he replaced coag. drh you are right, the attention lavished on you (as I'm doing right now) always hurts the town so I have a proposal for you, let's try and go one mafia day without you being the topic of discusion... k?
Your post is:
A) Really defensive when I never flamed you. I'm really just worried that joke might be serious, this wouldn't be the first time ridiculous metagame arguments would used against me and whether you were joking or not may not be relevant. I'm pointing out that the IDEA is stupid, not you, so it isn't a flame.
B) You aren't lavishing attention on me and you're basically creating an excuse to discourage my posting at all. You're proposing my idea to me and being cute about it in a way that is really irritating. Yeah ok I accept your proposal that has been the thing I've been shouting at people in every mafia game where this happens. I don't really understand what you're trying to imply about me with the last "question" but I'm annoyed by it.
The question is whether the defensiveness is because he was a bit touchy, or if it is because he's sweating as Mafia.
Note, Meapak has never been mafia yet. And always, someone's first game as mafia is very loose (I should know), and super defensiveness is incredibly telling. FOSes Meapak somewhat. Attempts to throw suspicion on him at the very least. Does it in a backhanded manner however, I don't really like it.On December 28 2010 00:43 LSB wrote:
On December 28 2010 00:41 annul wrote:
okay, hi peeps
FOS LSB.
analysis to come shortly
<3 you too.
I want to see the analysis. Throwaway post On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:
EBWOP
On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:
On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyShow nested quote +On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then?
Can you read his post?
It doesn't do anything about inactives.
It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game.
Does it work? Not really.
LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
Clarifies what he meant. Nothing here really.On December 28 2010 01:15 LSB wrote:
Firstly, pointing out that someone isn’t on topic isn’t analysis. It’s just plain distracting. Why don’t you include my two posts at the start of the game? Their spam too!
On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:
On December 27 2010 11:11 LSB wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I wanted to wait for the day post before posting this but w/e All right, in many games there was an uneventful first day. Lets not make this one of those games. A few things to talk about: - Should we lynch an inactive day one? Assuming of course, there is no good alternative
- Plans for the roles
Inactives:A big problem in every mafia game is inactivity. I don't want another drag_ being able to squeak by with barely any posts. We should immediately show it is not okay to be inactive. Inactive players hurt the town as they waste lynches down the road as the town will need to try to separate the mafia from the inactives. We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one. This will force the assassins to discuss and not be able to turtle, increasing the chance they will slip up. The key is that we have to make sure the town knows it is not okay to just simply sit back and not do anything. This way, hopefully everyone will be active and we won't need to lynch an inactive. PlanFirstly. DO NOT CLAIM DO NOT CLAIM Good now that we got that out of the way, some other ideas. Generic Blue Activity planOne plan that would work is to use the blue roles to promote activity in the town. The DTs should check the inactive people and the lurkers, as it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to tell the difference between a bored townie and a lurking mafia. The Medics should protect active players, this way the mafia won't be able to take out the people who are contributing the most to town, so people won't be scared of trying to put forth their opinions. Framer Issue: Framers are much better put to use framing the important townies. So any attempt by the mafia for framing the inactives would be a waste.
"should we lynch an inactive?" <-- probably knows mafia is most likely to at least pay attention to the thread enough to evade being labeled inactive. probably knows even if there are mafia inactives, he can choose any other town inactive and maintain the aura of "hey im helping out town"
the rest of this is informative sure, but common sense? but the line "We should therefore push to lynch an inactive day one." worries me. much better to hit an active scummy person and LSB should know this.
Please read Pokemafia.
"DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\
Thanks!
Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:25 LSB wrote:
On December 27 2010 11:20 TheMango wrote:
Isn't that part of the game? assuming you're using it strategically, and not just for fun/out of boredom?
Of course.
There's a few cases where claiming is okay.
1) You are about to be lynched. Don't expect this to save you, but it would be nice to tell the town what happens
2) DT checks you. The DT then messages you and say that "I know your role is [insert green/blue role here]. This is mainly used when the DT finds a red, and also finds a green. The green becomes the "DT Mouth" and tells the Town what the DT found out.
3) The Medic successfully protects you. Assuming that it wasn't a hit from the mad hatter, if the medic protects someone, that person probably isn't mafia.
4) The town thinks of some super awesome plan.
The issue is when blues jump the gun and start claiming before they confirmed someone. That's a great way to get our blues sniped. (See Salem Mafia. For a short summary, look at the article in the Pony Express) 1 and 2 are fine, 3 is not - you don't claim here, you just admit to being hit - preferably to town circle if you know where it is. 4 is a catch-all sure, but claiming day 1 to a "super awesome plan" is a horrible idea. that said though, LSB is providing pure information (some of which is sketchy) and no analysis. this early it is usually fine but consider it in the light of his earlier postings? it is like he wants to be active but isnt contributing valuable stuff.
Help me then. What analysis could I do at that point?
Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 12:37 LSB wrote:
On December 27 2010 12:35 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
If he is of the belief I'm spamming, I've just been posting somewhat short responses because there hasn't really been anything worth discussing up to this point.
What do you feel about lynching inactives / spammers?
What do you feel that the blues should do? more "hit inactives" crap - this is bad. also maybe a blue fish?
Read the thread please
wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens.
Do you seriously think that I need to pretend to be active?
Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:26 LSB wrote:
I don't believe Pandain is mafia just because he fingered Mr. Wiggles.
Clearly at the time Mr. Wiggles did not contribute anything, and Pandain just voted to accent his point.
Indeed, as Ver put in his town guide, spamming can be detrimental to the town.
Now, I don't belive we should lynch Mr. Wiggles. It is far to early to tell anything about him, and also I'd rather lynch a lurker/inactive than a spammer. HEY something of content, cool. sort of defense of pandain and blatant defense of mr. wiggles. sadly the rationale of "inactives instead!" is scummy.
Why don't you analyze my defense of Pandain, what does it say?
in conclusion, LSB has been making pure nonposts and/or pure informative posts without analysis, with the two exceptions being his insistence on the "kill inactives" theme and his defenses of pandain and mr. wiggles. yet he has like 30 posts up while saying almost absolutely nothing.
my vote is on LSB now.
Nice ‘analysis’ yourself btw.
Woo, big content post. Juicy. I think he defends himself relatively well. I will talk more about one of the points later, cos it bugs me. The 'Nice ‘analysis’ yourself btw.' is a bit underhanded and unnecessary though. Maybe a bit too defensive? The argument over inactive vs scummy is one we should talk about though.On December 28 2010 01:34 LSB wrote:
On December 28 2010 01:29 d3_crescentia wrote:
On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:@LunarDestinyOn December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
I don't like the idea of pressuring a certain person to speak up one at a time. If the mafia choose to pressure a townie and that townie is afk, then we are falling into mafia's trap. We should consider all inactive. When day1 is half way over, we should come up with a list of people who are inactive/all spam/suspected and discuss who to lynch. Maybe then, those people on list will speak up and defend themselves. What do you think we should do about inactives then? Can you read his post? It doesn't do anything about inactives. It just says we make a list of inactives and see what happens. We've done this practically every single game. Does it work? Not really. LunarDestiny, can you elaborate a bit more then?
I thought it said, "we make a list of inactives and then vote on one of them." Yes, this is virtually identical to what we've done in previous games, and you're right that it doesn't work very well. I don't think further elaboration on his part will really help though, as I don't think any variant or extension on the aforementioned plan is what we need to win.
Personally, I would like DT checks on the inactives. That could be an easy way to clear people.
That does bring up an issue, we should make it so that there is some way for the DT to be able to say what they checked, so that when they die, their information doesn't get lost.
What if at the start of every day, people just randomly say a person's name, and a role. The DTs would say who they checked and someone's role.
It would look something like this
[spoiler]
LSB is Townie
Infun is Mafia
DTA is DT
LSB writes I checked Infun, he's medic
Infun writes I checked LSB, he's mafia
DTA writes I checked Infun, he's mafia
And so when DTA dies, we can go back and check out his checks[/spoiler] Hypocop (what this strat is called) is not needed at the moment. It should be used when a lot of (or all) medics are dead and DTs are alive. Roleblockers make a difference as well. For now it is too early imo. On December 28 2010 02:52 LSB wrote:
Well remember, there are only 2 DTs. Although this might help the mafia confirm who is who, there will be a lot more than 2 people getting all the roles right.
Also, once the DT establishes a mouth, this could be a way for the DT to throw off the mafia, by posting false responses in the thread in order to get off the hit list. On December 28 2010 02:53 LSB wrote:
2 is an estimate on the numbers of DTs, this is based off of balance. On December 28 2010 03:08 LSB wrote:
On December 28 2010 03:02 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
The problem with that though, is that it almost defeats the purpose, it's a lose-lose situation for the town.
Either the DT says what they check correctly, and the mafia will home in on them, or else they lie to keep them off their trail.
Remember, if we pull this off, all thirty people will be telling what's going on. Basically you have a 50/50% of getting someone's role right. (Okay maybe a bit less, but not much). A dt can easily hide within the mass of people getting the roles correct
Now as for the fakeout
The problem arises when they start to lie. If they are killed, then we would ideally go back and look at what they said peoples roles are, but if they start faking it, we won't know which are real and which are fake, unless there is already an established mouth who comes out and tells us. But then you might get multiple people claiming different things about what the DT told them, which make the DTs claims near useless, as we won't be able to discern truth from falsities.
Exactly, the DT will only do this when there is an established mouth.
Unless there's something I"m missing, or don't know about how the game is played, this doesn't look like it'll help that much in the end. If this is actually a tried and true method and I look really stupid right now, please let me know. Thanks. 
I don't know if this has been tried before. But the issue I'm trying to address is when the DT gets killed before he's able to disclose what he found. On December 28 2010 04:48 LSB wrote:
On December 28 2010 04:40 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I'm all for pressuring inactives to speak day 1 but no DT's should absolutely not come public with their claims that is a terrible and awful idea and I won't even begin to consider.
What do you think of my plan?
What do you think about the use of DT mouths?
The problem is when we focus too much on inactives we start calling people scum just because they didn't post enough when the far more disturbing trend is posting a lot/posting big posts and saying absolutely nothing helpful:
aidnai in exmima
radfield in salem
kavdragon in pokemafia
etc.
Indeed I agree that it could be a mafia tell. I do have a few people in mind in this game.
However, these people are so much easier to analyze than someone like Oceanic in Pokemafia. More hypocop stuff. I wouldn't say calling for it is scummy, but I definitely disagree with the idea in this game at the stage we are at. More reiterating about the inactives.On December 28 2010 04:51 LSB wrote:
Lol yay we're not spamming .... really?On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:
On December 28 2010 05:17 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
LSB; while Annul doesn't have a very strong case against you, your defense was pretty pathetic. I've had a bad gut feeling about you for a while, it's not something I was planning on voting on but Annul did bring out all of the problems I had been having with your posts. I'm not voting you quite yet but I would like you to give more than one line answers whenever someone puts a fos on you. Consider this post a +1 for Annul's case against LSB. I'd like to see you take some time in defending yourself and not just brush it off because there were some good points in annul's post.
Give me a point to address then. I thought his defence was fine, annul's case was pretty weak. Meh, maybe I'm wrong.On December 28 2010 05:23 LSB wrote:
On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
@1)I want to ask you how should we put pressure on specific player to contribute. It would be bad if a mafia is calling out inactive townie. Also, who should we choose? Go to a list of inactive and randomly pick one of them and say "xxxx, please contribute."
@2)If the list is short enough (less than 10 people?), then the list is convincing enough to pressure people to speak up.
What's the difference between the two scenarios?
In both we are putting pressure on people to contribute. In both we need to make a list of inactives. For some reason I don't get the point of this post -_-;; my brain is tiredOn December 28 2010 05:25 LSB wrote:
On December 28 2010 05:23 Jackal58 wrote:
[spoiler] I voted Jackal for the same reason, but actually am inclined now to vote for someone else with his excuse, but will actively be pressuring him in PM land to contribute more so. Jackal, that's why your being voted. Contribute more and I'll lay off you. [/spoiler]
It's all good man. I don't feel like you're picking on me.
Like I already said day 1 lynch is a crap shoot.
Unless somebody really steps on their dick.
I've seen it many times actually.
Kenpachi/Coagulation (Almost, but we switched)- Deconduo's Don't lose your village game
Me/Pyrr- TLMMM 2
Me- Harry Potter Mafia
Masq- Haunted Mafia
Bill Murray (Almost, but Ace made us switch x.x)- Penalty Mafia
And many others... And even if we don't lynch maf day one, voting patterns are important to look back on.[B]On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote: Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:23 LunarDestiny wrote:
On December 28 2010 04:57 Barundar wrote:I’m sorry to point it out, but I can’t help but notice how general and unproductive your posts are, LunarDestiny. Show nested quote + At some point on day1, we should come up with a list of possible lynch and that will encourage those people on the list to speak up 1) Lists are a good way to appear like you are contributing, without actually adding anything. Show nested quote + I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. 2) Pressure is not done in general, pressure is specific to make the player unable to hide. Your list of pressuring “all” inactives is the same as pressuring none. 3) There is a fine line between a plan, and suggestions that make you appear to be active while sending the town on a goosechase. Your plan requires no work from yourself (“we” should do this and that), is very general (“at some point”), and it’s limited to inactives instead of scumhunting, making it mechanic, so even when we hit town, the mafia is not guilty. In general, the player list is a little more stacked with active players than Pokemafia/HPmafia, so inactives shouldn’t be as much as a problem (even if I just replaced one…)
My respond is above. (Thought I could post right under without quoting) Okay, now your post makes a bit more sense. But the point still stands. Why is it so bad to put pressure on one person and then move? Why is this better than RNG? [b]Conclusion 1. He is adamant that focusing on inactives is the most important thing to do day one. I I think I agree with him on this point. As I have said in other games, if you don't lynch the lurkers early (town or otherwise) they will become a huge problem later on in the game. Mafia will almost never kill lurkers unless they suspect them to be blue. When it goes down to lylo, you don't want to have to choose between a bunch of people with 5 posts between them. 2. Suggests hypocop. I totally disagree with this, it helps the mafia narrow down the real DTs much much quicker than they usually would be able to. There is no need for it at all right now. 3. His 'fight' with annul is interesting, I want to look into it more when I am awake.
|
EPT
