TL Mafia XXXV

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:

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.

On December 27 2010 12:25 LunarDestiny wrote:


Contradiction? Pandain say we should lynch inactive for day1 then vote for Mr. Wiggles?

Pandain, please explain.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

On December 28 2010 03:43 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.

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.

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.

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.

On December 28 2010 05:34 LunarDestiny wrote:

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.

On December 28 2010 05:46 LunarDestiny wrote:

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.

On December 28 2010 05:57 LunarDestiny wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.