|
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
|
5/5! And Merry Christmas to you too!
|
On December 27 2010 13:40 seRapH wrote:Show nested quote +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 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
|
On December 27 2010 21:02 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
40 Minutes Later
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179875#2
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...
|
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?
|
On December 27 2010 19:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 19:53 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: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.
|
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.
|
[QUOTE]On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 28 2010 00:40 LSB wrote:
@LunarDestiny
[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.[/QUOTE]
What do you think we should do about inactives then?[/QUOTE]
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?
|
EBWOP
On December 28 2010 00:50 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
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:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
On December 28 2010 01:29 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:56 LSB wrote: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
+ Show 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
|
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.
|
2 is an estimate on the numbers of DTs, this is based off of balance.
|
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 04:40 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.
|
Lol yay we're not spamming
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
