|
On December 28 2010 05:23 Jackal58 wrote:+ Show 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. 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...
|
On December 28 2010 05:23 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. 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?
|
On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +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. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people.
Yes but we would be pointing fingers at every single inactive. We wouldn't just focus on one (Like how a lynch would work), we would just take notice of people and ask them questions.
On a somewhat related note...
On December 28 2010 05:33 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:25 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 Jackal58 wrote:+ Show 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. 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 the closest I've seen to that is TheMango. Yet he is not getting any love.
Well, there's a few good discussion points right now.
Like what do you think of me?
As for TheMango, I'll PM him then
|
On December 28 2010 05:39 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 04:49 Pandain wrote:
1.I do not think we should vote LSB. Plainly, he has been contributing alot so far, more than most of the people already. Plainly, if he is mafia, then we'll most likely catch him anyway. We should not be lynching actives, even if we have a slight suspicion that he's mafia. Obviously if we have a good inkling I suppose we should go for it(as in team melee mafia 2 incog fingered lsb day 1) but right now there's really nothing on LSB, and I wouldn't want to lynch an expierenced player. Plus there are some problems with your analysis, but I'll just name a few.
1. If you are hit, then u should claim. LSB was right. Becuase mafia can't tell if ur vet or just protected or what.
2.You're mistaking jokes for real content. (aka when lsb said coag got banned so dr. h could join)
3.The only real suspicious thing about him is his somewhat spammy nature.
The most important of which being number 3, but that is certainly not a reason to lynch him when he's already contributed alot.
this worries me i already highlighted LSB's defense of pandain. now pandain is defending LSB on my FOS. in and of itself that is fine but his rationale is "if hes mafia, we'll catch him anyway" ... whaaaaaat?
Just wondering. What do you mean that "highlight"?
|
Like state what happened?
|
On December 28 2010 05:45 annul wrote:
yes, point out, draw attention to, etc.
you know when you highlight text in a book? to draw your eyes to important things later when you study? like that
Yes... interesting cause when you highlight text in a book, you aren't actually contributing anything.
|
On December 28 2010 05:49 annul wrote:
you mean like you?
i think ~24/30 of this game will agree that i have contributed much more analysis to this game than you have. the 6 who wont are you and your five mafia teammates. if there are seven mafia or eight mafia then it will be 23/30 and 22/30 who will agree with this. =\
Let's see what you have done this game.
1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 01:00 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:27 LSB wrote: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! what is the point of this post? acting as if he is mafia to create the impression he is not mafia? WIFOM surely, but think about it Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:35 LSB wrote:
I say we lynch ~OpZ~ because his town play and mafia play is indistinguishable. what is the point of this? instant attempt to form a wagon on someone who hasnt even posted yet and the game had just started? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:37 LSB wrote:
If there are mayoral elections, will you help me make my campaign poster? Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:38 LSB wrote:
Nvm, doesn't seem like there are mayoral elections two posts to seem active and he answers his own question a minute later. point of this? 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. "DO NOT CLAIM" is good advice, and i would like to say obvious, but given current history and shit it isnt =\ Show nested quote +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 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. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:27 LSB wrote: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. common sense information Show nested quote +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? fair question! ? 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? wants to write a day post. uh huh. keep this in mind with the "try to appear active but not" lens. 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. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:30 LSB wrote:EBWOP 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. dunno how to analyze this -- information that isnt common sense (or meant to filibuster) is fine, and even i didnt know this one. id say this gets a pass 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 yes, lets lynch people with zero meaningful posts. LSB, you up? or yes lets lynch a modkill target because those are almost certainly going to be town and we want to lynch towns, yes. you too. 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. good idea, i like this, but why sign up and then insta modkill on purpose? if youre replaced its not like you can consider any potential wins by the mafia as wins for you -- you are considered not to have even played the game. seems like something nobody should ever do on purpose and if they do, metagaming at its finest. buuuut then we haaaave..... Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:57 LSB wrote: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 "DONT WORRY ABOUT BEING INACTIVE LOL" after his entire campaign day 1 was "kill the inactives" -- whaaaat? what is this inconsistency? Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 00:34 LSB wrote: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? 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#2On 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... yes coagulation got a 14 day ban on purpose to "help" his mafia team day 1, this makes perfect sense. ***************** 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.
Notice that Annul quotes every single post I made. This is just silly. Sure, I like to spam. But do you really need to point out every single instance? At least put it in a spoiler.
The reason why Annul does this is to put some kind of useless contributing so that he can increase his post length. For example take LMNOP in WaW mafia. He just posted long walls of text and came off as green and helpful.
He still tries to build this facade of his contributions. + Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 05:49 annul wrote:
you mean like you?
i think ~24/30 of this game will agree that i have contributed much more analysis to this game than you have. the 6 who wont are you and your five mafia teammates. if there are seven mafia or eight mafia then it will be 23/30 and 22/30 who will agree with this. =\
He's trying to set up the fact that he's a good contributor. And then he tries to establish his greenies just because he makes long posts.
2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives
+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 01:27 annul wrote:
1. i read pokemafia. still a horrible idea to lynch inactives over active scum
Comming from a game of Pokemafia, I know the damage that an inactive can do. He simply dismisses any discussion over an inactive without much reason
3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced
+ Show Spoiler +Well, let's look at how substantial his posts are 2. you could do whatever analysis you please? all i know is you didnt do any Firstly, up to this point, barely anyone had posted anything. Intrestingly enough, I've posted many reasoning on blue actions, and how to deal with inactives. Yet Annul brushes it aside. I've clearly analyzed Pandain. And yet he claims that I have done nothing? 3. evidently you do need to pretend to be active, since you did for ~30 posts I'm pretending to be active. This would be a valid concern, if I did nothing but spam. However, I have pleanty of posts that arn't spam, and far more than Annul. 4. it says you are defending pandain? i dont understand what you are asking me to do Note: He doesn't analyze my actions At all. All he does it point out spam.
From his 'analysis' we can see a few things.
1) His reasoning is incredibly flawed. He ignores all meaningfull posts and focuses on the spam
2) This analysis is probably forced. There are many inconsistancies he can't explain so he simply ignores it.
4. Annul posts without brining anything new
+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 05:39 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 04:49 Pandain wrote:
1.I do not think we should vote LSB. Plainly, he has been contributing alot so far, more than most of the people already. Plainly, if he is mafia, then we'll most likely catch him anyway. We should not be lynching actives, even if we have a slight suspicion that he's mafia. Obviously if we have a good inkling I suppose we should go for it(as in team melee mafia 2 incog fingered lsb day 1) but right now there's really nothing on LSB, and I wouldn't want to lynch an expierenced player. Plus there are some problems with your analysis, but I'll just name a few.
1. If you are hit, then u should claim. LSB was right. Becuase mafia can't tell if ur vet or just protected or what.
2.You're mistaking jokes for real content. (aka when lsb said coag got banned so dr. h could join)
3.The only real suspicious thing about him is his somewhat spammy nature.
The most important of which being number 3, but that is certainly not a reason to lynch him when he's already contributed alot.
this worries me i already highlighted LSB's defense of pandain. now pandain is defending LSB on my FOS. in and of itself that is fine but his rationale is "if hes mafia, we'll catch him anyway" ... whaaaaaat? basically pandain is saying "so what if he acts scummy day 1, if hes mafia he will act scummy days 2-X and we can lynch him then" <--- am i missing something here when i call this horrible logic? on point: i am not so sure public claiming of being hit is 100% the smart play, but am willing to be persuaded on this strategy debate. note that even if LSB turns out correct and this is the proper strategy, it does not acquit him of scumminess. second, "mistaking jokes for real content" makes me scratch my head. can anyone just out and say "JUST KIDDING LOL" if someone calls them up on something? i think a big part of my case against him is in the spammy nature, as you call it. he posts a lot without actually posting a lot, you know what i mean? its that plus his case against inactives that bothers me.
Lets take a look at what he said
1) I said stuff before
2) I feel that not claiming being hit is a good idea. wtf? Remember, always claim if your hit. The mafia knows who they hit. The town doesn't. Why not share the information?
3) Let's talk about something irrevelent
4) LSB spams
As you can see. He did not post anything new. All he did was re-highlight points he made before. And then describe his feelings.
|
On December 28 2010 06:22 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 06:03 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On December 28 2010 06:02 Jackal58 wrote:On December 28 2010 05:40 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote: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. Because if we do something like "xxxx you have not been contributing and that makes you look mafia, please contribute." We get contribution like Mr.Wiggle which is good. But if the mafia is the one pointing fingers, then other mafia will be left alone. Also, we are targeting a smaller group of people compared to having a list of people. Yes but we would be pointing fingers at every single inactive. We wouldn't just focus on one (Like how a lynch would work), we would just take notice of people and ask them questions. On a somewhat related note... On December 28 2010 05:33 Jackal58 wrote:On December 28 2010 05:25 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 05:23 Jackal58 wrote:+ Show 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. 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 the closest I've seen to that is TheMango. Yet he is not getting any love. Well, there's a few good discussion points right now. Like what do you think of me? As for TheMango, I'll PM him then I had no opinions one way or another til now. I couldn't tell if TheMango was being flip with his first 2 posts or if he is a bigger noob at this than I am. But I am curious now as to what you want to PM him about and how that action is going to make any difference to anybody. it makes a difference because it creates the illusion that lsb is having a positive impact on this game Was a rhetorical question. Unless I'm missing something on TheMango you guys all know about him, I believe him to be mafia along with his PM buddy LSB.
Mango Hasn't responded yet x.x
So what caused you to change your opinion of me?
|
On December 28 2010 06:26 annul wrote:
point 1 above is pretty lol, insofar as you call a PBPA "giant wall of text pretending to be [contributive]"
if PBPA is a spam maneuver then i really need to quit this game because i must not know a thing about forum mafia
+ Show Spoiler +
And the key point I'm making is that, I did not ignore or brush off your analysis. The key point is that if I can respond to every single one of your points in a post that is a fraction of the length http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=179009¤tpage=14#275, it means that your analysis is fluff
point 2 is a false classification of my position. i want to lynch scummy targets, not inactives. LSB wants to fire on inactives exclusively. it is correct that where there are no other scummy targets, an inactive is a fine kill. but where there is scum, there is no reason whatsoever to leave them alone in favor of inactives, which is what LSB advocates. right now there are scummy targets and there are places to analyze that do not involve inactives.
No it is not. You still do not have any solution to deal with inactives. We've been talking about plans, however your voice is suspiciously absent.
We cannot just ignore inactives. We ignored inactives in Pokemafia and we lost the game
You are asking to "worry about the inactive at a later date". This is not taking a position
point 3, spoiler 2 is false. "yet annul brushes it aside" -- yes, i clearly brushed aside you telling us what you want to do to inactives. clearly.
What about my analysis of Pandain? You have not address this in any point. In fact you ignore it right here
point 3, spoiler 3 is sort of false. perhaps they are not "spam" in the common way of thinking about it, but what you post are pure informative posts without almost any actual analytical contribution. yes, you do bring some things to the game, like the pandain/wiggles defense (and, after the FOS post, your attacks on me). but the vast majority of your postings -- as can be found in my PBPA -- are not analytical at all.
All right. Tell me what I should have analyized then? Should attack you because you haven't posted yet?
No! I did not make any analysis in the first few hours of the game because you cannot. It is impossible to deduce who the mafia are from a simple day post.
And when I did make analysis, it was when a lot of post had gathered up. But you chose to ignore this
point 3, spoiler 4 is unfair, because i asked you a question that you did not answer. you said "what does my defense of pandain SAY?" and i told you what it said, asking for more information on your question because there had to be more to it than that; there had to be some underlying question i wasnt seeing. you never clarified and now you seek to use this as a point. unfair at best.
This is not unfair. This is me pointing out what happens. Read above
for point 3 non-spoiler 2, show me the inconsistencies please? i will be more than willing to analyze whatever holes you think exist in my case. if i miss something its entirely an error - not an unwillingness to get on the record about a topic. show me what you want me to talk about (SPECIFICALLY) and i will.
1) I analyze Pandain. You pointed out that I analyzed Pandain.
2) You say that I didn't analyze anyone.
the rest of point 4 is laughable.
It's laugable because it's your attempt at posting nothing.
|
On December 28 2010 06:26 annul wrote:
point 3, spoiler 3 is sort of false. perhaps they are not "spam" in the common way of thinking about it, but what you post are pure informative posts without almost any actual analytical contribution. yes, you do bring some things to the game, like the pandain/wiggles defense (and, after the FOS post, your attacks on me). but the vast majority of your postings -- as can be found in my PBPA -- are not analytical at all.
I went back and looked at what point you were reffering to.
What analysis can I do within 60 Minutes of the game start?
|
A big argument between two people never gets much done, so I'll just keep this short.
Before you go vote for me. Go through my posts. There are clear examples of me taking positions and analysis.
There is a big difference between what Annul wants you to believe, and what I said.
Probably most of it is from a misunderstanding. I don't provide analysis in a game for a while. Annul probably saw the tail end of my Shockeyy analysis. However, that happened on day two.
I'm not letting up on Annul. But just trying to keep the thread focused on inactives.
|
On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. Show nested quote +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. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight.
Indeed.
1/4 are basically the same thing. How about this. With a bit more explanation.
1) Makes posts that don't do much, but pretend to be contributing. Then congratulates himself of all the contributions that he did. This is a mafia manuver. See LMNOP in WaW mafia
2) Although Annul says inactives hurt the town, he has not done anything to attempt to deal with the problem. He has shot down all attempts at working together a solution without offering a reason, let alone an alternative. This is a decidedly anti-town maneuver, as leaving the inactives alone will lose us the game. See Pokemafia
3) Annul analysis is forced. This is incredibly telling. See my analysis on SR in TMM2, I was mafia and I made a forced junk analysis in order to try to take off heat.
|
On December 28 2010 07:31 Barundar wrote:
I think the problems with inactives in HP mafia and Pokemafia was largely down to the number of new players. In this player list, there is a fair few veterans, who are used to have an impact on the game, which should help diminish the problems with inactives, and on top of that the gross offenders from those games has been banned.
Just to give you an idea. 4 people haven't posted yet. And 9 posters have only posted spam/point out that Pandain is being bandwagoned.
|
On December 28 2010 07:47 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 07:40 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. 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. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Indeed. 1/4 are basically the same thing. How about this. With a bit more explanation. 1) Makes posts that don't do much, but pretend to be contributing. Then congratulates himself of all the contributions that he did. This is a mafia manuver. See LMNOP in WaW mafia 2) Although Annul says inactives hurt the town, he has not done anything to attempt to deal with the problem. He has shot down all attempts at working together a solution without offering a reason, let alone an alternative. This is a decidedly anti-town maneuver, as leaving the inactives alone will lose us the game. See Pokemafia 3) Annul analysis is forced. This is incredibly telling. See my analysis on SR in TMM2, I was mafia and I made a forced junk analysis in order to try to take off heat. 1. "no u" defense again. this is precisely what i called LSB out on in the first place. we wouldnt even have these pages of debate if not for FOSing LSB. couldve just sat back and let pandain fall, very easy right?
So why didn't I just let Pandain fall? I could have attacked him
Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 06:52 annul wrote:
my position on inactives is irrelevant. of course id prefer them to not be inactive. but the only way to actually "deal" with them is to get them to stop being inactive somehow or to lynch them. barring some model way to do the former (which isnt obvious considering the state of TL mafia), then the latter is all we have. and right now, we need to kill scum not inactives. so yes, my idea is "wait until later" as that is all we can do. 3. "forced" how? i couldve sat back and let pandain hang, right? why am i calling you out specificallly if i didnt think you were scum? the only way is if pandain and i are both mafia and i am trying to save him, and while i am not clear on pandain, i do know his wagon makes no sense. i realize saying this will mean i hang if he turns red but =\ you are scummier than he is right now.
Btw, why is Pandain scum?
|
On December 28 2010 08:04 Barundar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 28 2010 07:40 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 07:34 LunarDestiny wrote:I am following debates between Annul and LSB. There are something I don't get. Annul's conclusion in his first post about why LSB should be lynched. 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. Annul, your conclusion for lynching LSB is because he have about 30 posts. All 30 posts, except 2, are posts that means nothing and pure informative posts without analysis? LSB, are your reasons for lynching Annul in page 17? -1. Giant wall of text that pretends to be contributing -2. He doesn't want to do anything about inactives -3. He makes a faulty analysis that is forced -4. Annul posts without brining anything new I will say what I think of this later, but I want to get these two points straight. Indeed. 1/4 are basically the same thing. How about this. With a bit more explanation. 1) Makes posts that don't do much, but pretend to be contributing. Then congratulates himself of all the contributions that he did. This is a mafia manuver. See LMNOP in WaW mafia 2) Although Annul says inactives hurt the town, he has not done anything to attempt to deal with the problem. He has shot down all attempts at working together a solution without offering a reason, let alone an alternative. This is a decidedly anti-town maneuver, as leaving the inactives alone will lose us the game. See Pokemafia 3) Annul analysis is forced. This is incredibly telling. See my analysis on SR in TMM2, I was mafia and I made a forced junk analysis in order to try to take off heat. Why would a mafia analysis be forced on day 1? There was noone else pointing fingers of LSB, until annul made his post. If he is mafia he has no incentive to lynch this badly. Second your reasons for voting annul is pretty weak considering you clearly would rather lynch an inactive. Why do you vote a player without believing in it? Even worse why do you vote omgus?
I'll just copy-paste one of my PM conversations with Pandain since I don't really want to retype this
Original Message From LSB:
Normally I don't defend myself. Harry Potter Mafia?
I only defended myself since it was horrendously bad.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
obviously you would defend yourself.
But annul thought that everyone would just ignore it? why would he be so bold on day 1, at the very start, just to "gain town favor" and hope its ignored.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From LSB:
Nope, I defended myself and put pressure on him.
That's why he's continued to post.
This is what pressure is.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
So he made a long thing analysis, even saying beforehand "Guys im making analysis of LSB"(thus bringing more attention), then has continued to do this because he wanted it to get ignored?
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From LSB:
He wants to win the town favor by making a long post and hoping that it gets ignored. That way he can go back and say "Look at all the analysis I did!". And indeed he has done that.
Also, check this out. Take out my arguments with him and his analysis of my. What else does he have left?
Not much.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
why would he force himself to do an analysis on you so early?
don't you think if he was really red he wouldn't be this so much out in attention?
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From LSB:
Yeah. His analysis is forced.
-----------------------------------------
Original Message From Pandain:
do you really think he's red?
Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 07:47 LSB wrote:On December 28 2010 07:31 Barundar wrote:
I think the problems with inactives in HP mafia and Pokemafia was largely down to the number of new players. In this player list, there is a fair few veterans, who are used to have an impact on the game, which should help diminish the problems with inactives, and on top of that the gross offenders from those games has been banned. Just to give you an idea. 4 people haven't posted yet. And 9 posters have only posted spam/point out that Pandain is being bandwagoned. That’s not really a lot of inactives on day 1. Why don't you name one at put pressure though?
I've prodded Mr. Wiggles, and also Jackle58.
How about prodding TheMango? He hasn't really done much at all this game
|
Okay, sure, TheMango voted for me. If you want, you can choose. Just RNG a number from this list
5. Brocket
6. TheMango
7. Mr.Zergling
8. why
15. ShoCkeyy
17. ilovejonn
19. Orgolove
21. bumatlarge
23. GeorgeClooney
26. deconduo
27. Soulfire
29. Ryuu314
30. ~OpZ~
|
On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote:
-LSB also mentioned that Annul do the analysis on LSB to make himself look good by using it as a reference that he did lengthy analysis. But LSB also say that annul want his post to be ignored. I have to question why would annul choose LSB to accuse if he want his post to be ignored. It makes no sense. If annul want his post to be ignore, he could have analyze someone other than LSB, because pointing finger at LSB would certainly result in some lengthy responses that annul can't slip by.
My best explanation of this has to do with how I acted in Harry Potter Mafia and Pokemafia. There was this giant bandwagon on me day one, and I didn't really do much about it.
In Pokemafia I just dismissed analysis against me and didn't do much about it.
This game is different as Annul's analysis was horrendious and sparked some alarms. I then sat back and watched as Annul kept it up.
This is why I'm openly attacking him now.
+ Show Spoiler +Well... Harry Potter Mafia, I didn't bother with the bandwagon because the plan was basically to get me lynched.... thanks DocH x.x
|
Let's refocus on inactives.
There are two lurkers/inactives that have voted so far.
6. TheMango- I consider him a lurker as he hasn't offered insight on anything.
30. ~OpZ~- Hasn't done much in thread. He has PMed me, but I don't know if he is actually active.
If why/Brocket/GeorgeClooney gets around to voting/posting, we could switch the lynch. But currently we should push to lynch the people who actually aren't in danger of being modkilled.
People probably with say that I have a conflict of interest with TheMango since he voted for me. So I'm find with voting off ~OpZ~
On December 28 2010 11:41 LSB wrote:
##unvote
##vote ~OpZ~
|
I'm confused. Can someone point out my scummy posts?
I want to see if you all actually read what I wrote or just mouthing information from Annul.
As for the OpZ inactive lynch, he has posted a bit now. But he hasn't really said anything besides what other people had posted.
|
On December 28 2010 05:18 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Bump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
