Responses in blue
On December 29 2010 05:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Now for RoL's badass analysis of the game, raping Red's day 1. SeraphShow nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:28 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 10:25 TheMango wrote:
where are my mafia team mates? lets start getting rid of some people. Hey guys this is an obvious slip-up, we should lynch TheMango. Town wouldn't want to "get rid" of people  Also DrH because there's always a high chance of him being mafia. A nothing post, just the pregame jovial attitude usually shown by mafia. :D I'm a jovial person ^_^Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 10:54 seRapH wrote:
I highly doubt there's any more than 1 framer in this game, but we should keep rolecheck candidates to 4 or 5 to minimize framer/miller influence. One of my favorite little tells that a lot of people give off is format speculation early on, he is one of the first to discuss it. Seraph and LD. Although a LOT of people have done it in this game because their was a new role I think we can view this as an additional circumstance to his "mafia" behavior since a lot of people exemplify this strait. I don't really get why this is scummy? This isn't so much speculation as it is drawing from previous game experience.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? At this point he gets on the"lets lynch inactives" train and trying to figure out how to define inactives. First off I am going to say this right now. Fuck lynching inactives. It is such a stupid plan most of the time, lynching an inactive does two VERY anti town things. One it provides ZERO information because generally there is no vote split on inactives its usually a unanimous decision among the town, and on top of that since there is NO information to decide on who we are going to lynch because they are inactive the mafia have a huge influence over just which inactive guy we decide to kill. In summary lynching inactives makes Day 1 a day we get NO information and on top of that the lynch is more readily swayed by the mafia, yielding our daily KP to them. It is just stupid. What annul did is exactly what I would do. Just start throwing shit and see who comes out of the wood work. Ideally though you aim to target someone who you believe is red. But either way the important thing is we are getting information. I wanted to discuss lynching inactives because it does incline the would-be lurkers to start posting. Who knows if it worked or not, but at least it's a prod. I would never actually go ahead and lynch an inactive/lurker day 1 though, I agree, the information we get from that is minimal. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 13:36 seRapH wrote:
Inactives with zero posts or votes will be modkilled/replaced, so I guess what I meant was lurkers. How will we determine who are lurkers and how will we pick which to be irradiated? 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. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 14:04 seRapH wrote: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. Bah DrH is our only replacement right? I kinda wish there were a few more but whatev =\ We are going to see a recurring trend with Seraph, He doesn't really ever stop talking about inactives and mod kills at all. Hooray. Clarify how this makes me scum?Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 14:22 seRapH wrote:
I don't want luck to have any more to do with this than it has to. Early vig hits is much too risky, and has just as much if not more chance of hitting blue than it does of hitting red. Sure reducing KP is important, but keeping our number of blues is even moreso. Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 14:53 seRapH wrote:On December 27 2010 14:35 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on or AFTER night 2 Right, so this isn't something that's exactly urgent, is it? Day 1 lynching, however, is. Now one big thing to notice here, he advises against using KP and uses a TERRIBLE argument. This is a giant redflag to me. Why the hell would there be a better chance of hitting a blue then a red with a vigi hit? If we hold off our vigi hits there is a better chance the mafia will kill the vigi and we lose that KP too. That's roughly equivalent to telling mad hatters not to place bombs until night 3 because chances are they will just bomb a blue. It just chances us wasting our KP that we shouldn't be. On top of that if a vigi is doing ANY amount of behavioral analysis then they should be able to hit a god damn red by night 2 if they choose to, MAYBE hold it off until night 3. I generally would not recommend holding off your hit because it increases the chance of the town losing it. RoL you seem pretty confident in our blue's scumhunting capabilities. You may be right but I'd rather play this on the safe side and not waste the hit. I'm more confident in vigi's ability to stay alive than their scumhunting abilities. And I still don't see how this labels me red, isn't the whole point of discussion to get rid of bad ideas and spread good ones? Why weren't you chiming in?And on top of that Seraph says we have more important things to discuss then vigi's, like the day 1 lynch. Alright, I can agree with that but seriously what the fuck is there to talk about if you are lynching an inactive? Exactly, nothing. Its just basically RNG whichever person not posting the mafia approves of and unanimously killing them. Once again, I had no intention of pushing a lynch on an inactive.Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 15:00 seRapH wrote:
Well given that it's day 1 we're mostly waiting for people to check in. So people should be pitching in about their stances on the following issues:
Day 1 lynch- Inactives or suspects, and then who?
Role of PMs in this game
Any questions you guys may have should also be asked, an informed town is a good town ^_^ Alright let me get this strait. By your agenda we should be lynching inactives and searching for them but we need to wait for people to check in day 1...? Pretty much self explanatory. So far we have seen a good amount of anti town posting from Seraph on top of a bit of spammyness. Straits are small rivers. And we were only a few hours into the day, so pretty much everyone was "inactive".Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 07:49 seRapH wrote:
It's pretty obvious that the Pandain wagon makes zero sense, so if you were mafia trying to establish credibility letting that go through would be stupid.
Annul my vote is going on you now because after reading through this thread I also think your analysis has been forced.
Also I'm keeping an eye on meapak. This is one of the posts I found really interesting. The pandain wagon did make no sense and Seraph says what I think he is trying to do. We can just label it wifom. At the same time he discredits Annul saying his argument is forced Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 08:55 seRapH wrote:
A forced argument is when you try to conjure up something out of nothing. Then explains what forced means! But seriously, how is Annul's analysis forced? I read it, it felt pretty natural to me. Annul remains dedicated and keeps going for his lynch of LSB and LSB OMGUS him back which is a really shitty way to play and incredibly anti town. The thing is I also believe that could just be a blue tell from LSB believing his role to be important for town victory. The last thing he does is FOS on Meapak but not saying ANYTHING about why. At least give some reason. Annul's analysis included taking a bunch of LSB's various bad and semi-bad jokes (and even a few worth chuckling for!) and treating them seriously. I mean really, you'd have to be from romania... Meapak was the first person to follow annul's case, but obviously since then many others have joined in. So the point's moot. Still, one of the first three or four on the wagon is likely mafia.Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 11:54 seRapH wrote:On December 28 2010 11:52 why wrote:
Hi everyone, just got off from work and caught up with the thread.
It seems to me that the annul vs. LSB debate is distracting from the issue at hand, hunting inactives. This is clearly the way to avoid an apathetic town.
The list that LunarDestiny suggested isn’t the best idea. If there are 10 people on the list, then no one will feel pressured to respond unless everyone else on the list is responding. They will just be lurking amongst the people on the list who aren’t responding on the list.
The best way to pressure inactives is to vote for them and actually intend to lynch them unless they contribute something useful.
As such, I'm going to pick someone that hasn't posted yet and put my vote on them. If they come to the thread and contribute then I'll move my vote off them. My pick is GeorgeClooney. I like that you're going to help us with this inactive thing, but we shouldn't be lynching someone who's about to get modkilled for not showing up. Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 17:17 seRapH wrote:On December 28 2010 16:42 Node wrote:I think between annul and LSB it's actually quite likely that one of them is scum. In Haunted Mafia, DocH and Pandain continually re-iterated the same arguments against each other, making huge walls of text that consumed many pages, and diverted town discussion from important things for like two whole game days. In the end, Pandain was scum. The difference there was that there were no PMs that game, so it was more important to be able to follow the thread well. All the same, I'm sensing echoes of that here, especially since annul seems to want to continue to force the issue. I'll also say that I find annul's posting to be much scummier than LSB's. The way he's posting reminds me a lot of the way he played Experimental Mini Mafia (which was an interesting experience, as I knew he was scum from the beginning ), whereas LSB's defense and contribution seems a lot more like his posting in Pokemafia, where he was green. For now, I'm putting my vote on annul. I'm also going to be analyzing LunarDestiny, as I think his posting has been... strange, to say the least. Gonna work on that now. Just clearing this up, but you do mean Insane Mafia, not Haunted, right? Seraph then stresses that we go back to lynching inactives while clearing up such a trivial issue between insane/haunted mafia. The running trend with Seraph is anti town play, just focusing on lynching an inactive and really not committing at ALL on the annul/LSB situation. This could be because he doesn't want to be associated with supporting a bad lynch of either of them, or not wanting to side at risk of being exposed when his ally gets lynched. What? Did you even check to see who I voted for? I defended LSB when I was here and put my vote on annul. I suppose I can't really say that I wouldn't risk chainsaw defending LSB now that he's been flipped, but I did!With that being said, I strongly believe Seraph is mafia and we should lynch to kill him and hold off on the LSB/Annul situation because of how important blue roles are to a town victory. On top of that if/when LSB fails to prove his claim we get another free mafia kill that we can make a vigi use. LSB is claiming to be able to PROVE his alliance by night 2 and if he can't then well I am sure we can do something about that can't we? We just need to stay focused and get him killed then and not get distracted by other "better" targets.
RoL your analysis really doesn't say too much about exactly why you think I'm mafia.
|
Pandain has been so wishy-washy that it's completely ridiculous. Check this out.
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.
He starts off saying that it would be bad to lynch LSB. Also, he says "we should not lynch actives". Keep this in mind.
On December 29 2010 05:07 Pandain wrote:
Summary: LSB is either vigi or Scum. I'm leaning towards scum. I think there's a 90% chance he is scum, and even if we lose a vigi, it's not like its game over. If he was a DT I would rethink it, but plainly I think I'm confident enough to lynch him despite his blue claim. From his very early blue claim to his pms with me, LSB has been playing very scummy and out of his norm. From super defensiveness and counter aggresion on Annul, to nitpicking at small details when debating, and making contradictions left and right, I feel confident that LSB is scum.
[/b]
24 hours later (after LSB said that he could prove his role), he's pretty sure that LSB is scum.
On December 29 2010 06:45 Pandain wrote:
Alright I've decided we should unvote LSB. I've thought about it for a while and while I'm pretty sure, almost certain LSB is scum, there's no real reason we have to do it now. He has said that he can prove without a single, even the tiniest bit of doubt, that he's safe at the start of night two. Not the end, but the start. So if he can't, then we vigi him, or if the vigi's dead, we lynch him.
It's like going for the win when you have an advantage in starcraft, its usually better to just sit back, expand, and get even more of an advantage for the certain win later.
Even better, LSB should say what his plan is to be 100% confirmed at the start of day 2, since it's not like mafia are going to kill him during the day. So then we can even lynch him if he never really had a plan.
Everyone should unvote LSB.
Now, LSB is definitely scum, but we shouldn't kill him.
On December 29 2010 06:59 Pandain wrote:I am going to say we vote D3_crescentia. Thus far he has been what I shall call the "contributors without without contributing." While giving much seemingly "friendly" generic advice, he hasn't really analyzed anyone, gave his opinions on the whole "Annul vs lsb" thing, which almost everyone should have. I would say he's a safe lynch. Show nested quote +Comments on Node's analysis of LunarDestiny: undecided is not an acceptable conclusion. Quite frankly I don't understand why you would post an analysis if you're just going to waffle around the steps to action; at least lay an FoS or something. I honestly don't think there's any benefit to doing analysis this early in the game from mafia to mafia teammate at this point in time, but leaving it so ambiguous doesn't really present a solid case. What do you mean analysis from mafia to mafia teammate? Am I looking to far or does this imply something that he knows that normally people don't I'll leave his posts here so you can see them. 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? Though personally I think one of the best ways to root out mafia is individual pressure. It will become increasingly obvious that the person is town based on how they defend themselves and whoever else supports them. If a person stays afk then that is a huge issue but generally a little pressure will generate a defense by one or more people that we can then analyze. On December 28 2010 01:29 d3_crescentia wrote: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. On December 28 2010 04:31 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote: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:@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 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.Looking at the voting thread, there are 3 people that were voted. Mr.Wiggies quickly responded after pandain voted on him. Pandain also respond after the mass vote on him. But Jackal had yet to respond after being voted by pandain. Accusing someone encourages participation from that that person. But what if that person is afk? He won't be able to respond. Also, IF pandain is mafia, then town will be sidetracked. Other inactive mafia will go under the radar.
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.I am saying that we should not target inactive (afk/spam/suspect) at a time for day 1 lynch. 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. Again all of the above is for day 1's lynch when town have almost no information. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. It doesn't really matter that the person is afk; that's why the day cycles are so long. What we especially have to watch out for is if everyone is *too complacent* in letting the target die. If there isn't adequate discussion that's been generated then we KNOW we haven't picked someone important. With that said I think I'd like to suggest something I was thinking of in my last game: every person take a look at the posts of the person below you on the page 1 list and post an analysis of said person on Day 3. That should give us enough time to accumulate a good amount of analysis. If said person is up for the chopping block then post what you have sooner than later. I think player death shouldn't cause too many problems with this plan and it should help newer players participate. On December 28 2010 05:51 d3_crescentia 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. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. Everyone has to point fingers. Even mafia point fingers at their own for weak posting or inactivity, but they will rarely push for a lynch. It should be our job as town to make sure that all of the necessary people are brought into the spotlight and to lynch those we find lacking. On December 28 2010 12:06 d3_crescentia wrote:
Oh wait I totally forgot this was a boot camp game. Definitely gonna ask some neato questions... in the morning~! On December 28 2010 22:59 d3_crescentia wrote:On December 28 2010 22:42 ShoCkeyy wrote:On December 28 2010 20:15 Node wrote:Analysis of LunarDestiny so far (my comments in blue):+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2010 10:51 LunarDestiny wrote:
Lets discuss about the game. Framer is the only role new to me and the role is damn powerful. If we focus on a small group of people, the framer can easily frame someone who dts will check. We should try to focus on a bigger group of people so the framer could not misled the town easily.
On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. On December 27 2010 11:10 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:08 Mr.Zergling wrote:On December 27 2010 11:03 LunarDestiny wrote:
I think the framer role encourages dts to use check on lurkers. why would it do that? Because it is unlikely that mafia would frame a lurkering town. So if dts check lurkers, then it will reduce the risk of them mischecking a framed target. He spends his first few posts addressing the framer role, and how it should affect DT checks. I'm not a big fan of directing blues, but I'm not about to call this scummy posting. When people start asking blues to take specific actions (ie put bomb on this guy, check this guy, protect so-and-so), then it sets off alarms.On December 27 2010 12:25 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 11:50 Pandain wrote:
WHAT TO DO FOR TODAY
I say to do this ery day, I say to do this now. Town should lynch inactives. This is actually a somewhat complicated process. Right now in the beginning I will just begin voting people(pressuring) until they make enough of a meaningful post and then I’ll vote someone else. Now, the point is to lynch those who “contribute without really contributing” not those who are just going to get modkilled. That is why at the end it’ll end up being one of the “semi lurkers”, not the dead ones.
SUMMARY
1.Contribute without spamming
2.Be active, make well thought out posts.
3.Lynch the semi inactives, inactives for now.
Contradiction? Pandain say we should lynch inactive for day1 then vote for Mr. Wiggles? Pandain, please explain. He calls Pandain out on voting Mr. Wiggles. IMO Pandain's vote was justified by his post, but I don't have a problem with this. On December 27 2010 14:17 LunarDestiny wrote:Since there are many new players in the game, they will probably base their night actions, if they have blue roles, on advices of others. Pandain did give out many good advices but I'll nitpick this one: Show nested quote +Vigi- I still think this should really be a town decision who to shoot. There are so many times when town is going to need that extra certain kp in situations in the future, in addition to the fact that most likely you will shoot a town. Only shoot if we tell you too, or(and I’m being very cautious on this) you just know I like the idea that vig's shot should be decided by town. Unless vigs are veteran, the town are better figuring out who is scum. Also, shots from vigs aren't wasted if more than one shots at the same person are made. I also want to discuss should vigs use their shots early to try to get lucky and kill mafia? Reducing mafia KP is very important and we also have two double lynch to compensate for lack of vig in the later in the game. Continues to advise blue roles, this time focusing on vig. I think it's a terrible, terrible idea to base the town's night kills on luck, enough that I'd call it scummy to ask for it. He also notes that newb blues are likely to base their action on town advice, which is exactly why I'm beginning to find it a bit weird just how much advice LunarDestiny is giving. Any mafia influence over special town roles is good for them.On December 27 2010 14:33 LunarDestiny wrote:
Vigs can only hit on night 2. At that time, we will most likely have multiple suspects. These suspects are likely to be our main lynch targets on day3. So if they are not killed, we have to deal with them anyway. The risk is that they are town and can be proven innocence on night 2 by a dt. But the existence of the framer discourage dts to check on suspects. So dt checks on suspected people returning town aren't convincing information.
Also in most of the games I played, vigs are killed before they were able to make shots. More blue advice.On December 27 2010 14:55 LunarDestiny wrote:
I was trying to give people someone to discuss. There is no better topic that I can find. I find it hard to believe that there's really nothing else to discuss, but I'll let this slide.On December 27 2010 17:00 LunarDestiny wrote:
People will ask what your opinion is on something and it is safe to respond on these pm. Just don't tell anyone your role. If you strongly sense that someone is trying to fish out your role, you should tell town since it is good indication that the person is mafia.
After night 1, dts would have checked some townies and pms are encouraged between them. There is a slight chance that a mafia will take the risk to fake the dt role, but it would be hard for them to do since they have to predict but role that person is.
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. More blue advice. Also, he wants a list made rather than pressuring inactives on an individual basis -- which other people have mentioned isn't the greatest of ideas.On December 28 2010 03:43 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +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:@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 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.Looking at the voting thread, there are 3 people that were voted. Mr.Wiggies quickly responded after pandain voted on him. Pandain also respond after the mass vote on him. But Jackal had yet to respond after being voted by pandain. Accusing someone encourages participation from that that person. But what if that person is afk? He won't be able to respond. Also, IF pandain is mafia, then town will be sidetracked. Other inactive mafia will go under the radar.
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.I am saying that we should not target inactive (afk/spam/suspect) at a time for day 1 lynch. 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. Again all of the above is for day 1's lynch when town have almost no information. I want to put pressure on all inactives to speak up and maybe contribution. He clarifies that he wants to not target an inactive for a day 1 lynch, but wants to pressure them into posting via his list. Which... I don't really get. Why would they post if there was no actual threat of being lynched? Also, I don't think mafia pressuring inactives would actually be bad, as long as . In addition the last time a complete inactive got lynched day 1 (salem mafia w/BrownBear), they ended up being red, though to be fair it was a traitor role, so the mafia wasn't aware of their alignment.
I don't agree with this post, but I'm more inclined to say that his thoughts come from a town point of view.On December 28 2010 04:08 LunarDestiny wrote:
Also, I somewhat don't agree with Dr.H that dts should check the people they think are the most likely to be mafia. The people that seem to most likely to be mafia are a combination of:
-Lurkers who post bare minimum to stay alive.
There is a lower chance that framer will framer a lurking town. I encourage dts to check these people. There is the downside where these people are more likely to be modkilled because they might be people who lost interest in the game. Without more people as replacement, dt checks might be wasted. So dts have to judge between lurkers who lost interest in the game and those who are posting minimum to stay alive.
-People who have taken a huge stand on issues and are in long debates with others. These people are most likely to be framer's target since there are, at most, a few of people in this categories. The probability of successful framing of these people is higher than probability of successful framing on lurking town. And even if a dt check says that a person of these categories comes out to be mafia, this information is useful, but less compared to other mafia games where there are no framer
To summarize, dts should use checks on lurkers to avoid framer. But should judge between real lurkers and discouraged players. Again with the blue advice.On December 28 2010 04:53 LunarDestiny wrote:
I am not saying that we should go after inactive all game. On day 1 where very few information is available, we should pressure all inactive to speak up. Because this game have the role framer in it, we should let dts deal with inactive and discourage dt checks on people are suspicious because they are in heated debates.
I agree that behavior analyze is important. Especially in this game, mafia check by dt on people who are in long debates are less convincing compared to other games because they are likely to be a framed townie. On December 28 2010 05:20 LunarDestiny wrote:
Yes, my posts are general and are related to how should we play this game because of minor difference (framer) compared to other mafia games.
@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.
@3)Again, I am not trying to post to make me look town. Heck, I could have lurked from the beginning and not attract attention to myself.
By my "plan", I assume you mean me saying "who should dts check" and "on day 1, we should pressure inactive to speak". Yes, both requires almost no work on my part. The first is advice to dts and the second is relating to generating discussions.
As of now, I do not have good point of why or why not anyone is mafia. I do not want to accuse anyone without good point. Here he's defending himself after Barundar's post accusing him of not posting much in the way of content. I'll go through point by point.
1. I already stated how I disagree with not pressuring players individually. And it's not like a list is going to be particularly persuasive in the way of getting inactives more active, unless people actually act on it. That requires votes.
2. See #1
3. Anyone could say this. Of course you don't have to post anything helpful, but it certainly assists your own case if you're mafia.
Altogether, an inconclusive post.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. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. So, it's okay to point fingers at active players because it encourages debate, but it's not okay to do so at inactive players because they might be afk. Again, I disagree, but that's a common theme at this point.On December 28 2010 05:46 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:26 LSB wrote: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. 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? I think I answered your first question in my post above. For your second question: The list is better because it will affect more inactive. Now I think RNG people to pressure them can be use in combination with having a list because I don't see why we can't use them together. To rephrase what I was saying, only RNG people and accuse them is not a good choice to pressure inactive. Having a list will pressure on a bigger group of people. You can RNG people and pressure them, BUT the list is needed because RNGing people is not enough. More pushing for the all-important inactive list. Why Insanious ended up making it instead of LunarDestiny is beyond me. On December 28 2010 05:57 LunarDestiny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 05:51 d3_crescentia 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. I also like to say that I am not discouraging pointing fingers at non-inactive. Having debates between active players especially useful since it is the best way to find mafia because a mafia dt checks on these people are less convincing than other mafia games. Everyone has to point fingers. Even mafia point fingers at their own for weak posting or inactivity, but they will rarely push for a lynch. It should be our job as town to make sure that all of the necessary people are brought into the spotlight and to lynch those we find lacking. As posted above, I think pointing finger is good but a list is needed because pointing finger is not enough. Also, the list thing is most useful in day1 since that is the day with the least information. After day1, I suppose that the lynch will be based on behavior analysis like other games. Also, I want to ask Pandain to stop voting at random people to pressure them to talk. If we are also pressuring random inactive, then the same person must not be the one pointing fingers. I find this post in particular especially strange. Pandain is getting results and encouraging discussion, and apparently that's a bad thing. The last sentence is garbled, but by the sound of it he means inactives should not be the ones to pressure inactives. Um... okay. So how else can they contribute?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. Finally he gets involved in the discussion that the town has been most concerned with lately. But whatever happened to pressuring inactives? In his whole post history, he has not actually called anybody out, or even commented on the list he wanted. Also, despite being quite active in the game so far, he hasn't cast a vote, even though he emphasizes pressure.On December 28 2010 08:33 LunarDestiny wrote:I also think that Annul's initial post about LSB being mafia is illogically since the town will definitely not lynch a veteran like LSB because he have some meaningless posts. LSB actually have way more than 2 good posts before annul's accusation. Annul's second reason on p.18 Show nested quote +insistence on going after inactives instead of scumhunting. it would be very easy for a mafia to know his team all happen to be active and then say "hey kill inactives over all else EVEN IF scummy targets exist Well, we know that there is a lot of inactive in this game. I also assume there must a some mafia inactive in this game so LSB going after inactive doesn't say much about him being scum. What I don't understand is why Annul accused LSB without good evidence why LSB is mafia. -I don't think Annul accuse LSB to save Pandain because the bandwagon on Pandain is a joke and there is no good reason to lynch pandain. -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. More comments on the LSB / annul debate. I'm happy to see him voice his thoughts on the matter, though I would rather see an actual position taken instead of just listing the various issues that are guiding the debate. He could be genuinely unsure of which side to take, or it could be the typical wishy-washy mafia.
So, final thoughts. LunarDestiny, up until commenting on the annul / LSB debate is all about lurkers and blues. Blues, lurkers, blues, lurkers. DTs should check them. We should pressure them this way, not that way. It's a good idea to lynch one. So on and so forth.
Final verdict: undecided. I'm going to leave it at 50/50 for now. His thoughts aren't inherently scummy, but I really wish that he would get a bit more specific and actually start pointing fingers instead of encouraging others to do so. I think what made me suspicious of him was how many of his points I disagreed with. I just think the inactive town list, asking Pandain to stop doing what's clearly working, and the desire to control blue actions are all misguided notions. The key here is that we don't actually know anything about him -- it would be quite easy for a scum to be behind these posts and say "I'm contributing!" even though everything he has said could be summed up in a few sentences. It's true that for most of the game he's been re-iterating the same thing over many posts.
If he is town, I think he could do better. Ok, what im wondering is, why would you go off posting who's blue, if he is or isn't. You're just making it easier for mafia to pick and choose on who to kill. Explain as to why you did this? If he is a blue I want to know why you did an analysis on him if he's really trying to help the town and hasn't posted scummy at all. I have my FoS on you. WOW way to not read the post, since his COMMENTS blue. This is exactly the kind of stupid crap that gets you killed. Comments on Node's analysis of LunarDestiny: undecided is not an acceptable conclusion. Quite frankly I don't understand why you would post an analysis if you're just going to waffle around the steps to action; at least lay an FoS or something. I honestly don't think there's any benefit to doing analysis this early in the game from mafia to mafia teammate at this point in time, but leaving it so ambiguous doesn't really present a solid case. As for LD himself, I find myself disagreeing with a lot of his posts thus far, so I'll follow the logical conclusion of the analysis and FoS LunarDestiny.
Now we should lynch d3, a person completely out of left field who hasn't even been talked about yet. We've got like 5 different lynch candidates proposed out of nowhere now, between d3 and seraph and brocket. It's worth noting that Pandain sent me a PM asking to shift my vote to d3.
On December 29 2010 08:51 Pandain wrote:In agreement with Meepack, this is quite evidently a bandwagon to save LSB. Since some of the people voting Brockett are new to the game, I'll explain why this lynch doesn't make any sense. He's made only one post. While LSB and Insanious claim that that shows he is inactive, and therefore mafia, all it really proves is its inactive. Just because he seems different from his normal posting(and he's only played one game? And only made one post thus far?) doesn't give a good indication that he's mafia. Note that the lynches are trying to be diverted in the last 3 hours. And 5 votes in a row, all in a rush. And alot of these people have just suddenly changed their mind. Take Jackal. Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 04:49 Jackal58 wrote:On December 29 2010 04:43 annul wrote:On December 29 2010 04:42 Insanious wrote:
I don't see LSB as a red, he doesn't look red to me then this is your real reson. its not his blue claim, its "i do not believe annul's analysis." What analysis? So far - annul: Yes you are. LSB: No I'm not. annul: Yes you are LSB: No I'm not. Ad nauseum. You both look scummy. It seems one or both of you has volunteered to get thrown under the bus. Thinks LSB is scummy. Plus he's made about 5 posts all about how The mango is scum. This change is very suspicious.What we're doing is lynching an inactive instead of lynching either the active scum or the lurkers/CNC'rs. What finally changed my mind(besides the bandwagon) to vote LSB again, however, is that he wanted to lynch me. Now if he were blue, then he would be in the mindset "omg scum want me lynched." However, I was advocating for him to survive at least another day, and he begins to accuse me of being scum. That just doesn't fit.
Wheee, now we should lynch LSB again! I love how his proposal to lynch d3 isn't an attempt to divert the lynch, but clearly the Brocket proposal is.
On December 29 2010 09:09 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2010 09:00 Insanious wrote:
I want to make it clear that the Brocket vote is based on him posting 10+ times in the first 24 hours of pokemafia as a town, and only once in 48 hours here.
Brocket is NOT playing like he did in Pokemafia and that is fishy as he was town there... So he is something different now. Bad reason why. There are so many reasons people act differently. There can be RL issues, he's just trying something new, and just add the fact that its the holidays and he's probably on vacation. Never should town lynch a total inactive. Town needs to be going after the lurkers, not the inactives. Not only do we gain nothing from Brockett's list, but add the fact that there are better people who are either showing signs of true scum or are seeming to contribute without actually contributing, unlike Brockett who isn't doing either. Scum usually want to seem to contribute. Not to mention that just because he has a different posting style(which could just be because he's busy) is no reason to actually lynch someone when we have people like LSB who if you really don't think is scum perhaps then you should fully read my analysis  . LSB knows better than to lynch someone like this, I believe you know better than to lynch someone like this.
And now we should never lynch total inactives, despite the fact that much earlier on Pandain clearly says not to lynch actives, even if we think that they're mafia. (which I find to be a pretty odd opinion in and of itself, but whatever)
I'd say that if Pandain is a scum player, he's doing his absolute best to confuse voters and get votes all over the place so it's harder to actually prevent the LSB lynch in the long run. Not to mention that wishy-washiness is a classic scumtell, and Pandain's opinion seems to change every few hours.
|
EPT
