EPTFinally, could you explain to me why suspicious =/= scummy? I don't understand.
To add on to that, just think about it in numbers. According to town, how many people were claimed to be "suspicious" during the day. Probably around 20. How many scum are there? Exactly 6. If every suspicious action was a genuine scumtell, we should logically have 20 scum. But we don't so we are obviously doing something wrong. I'm trying to fix that which we are doing wrong.TL Mafia XXXIX - Page 44
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
| ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
On May 07 2011 03:24 sandroba wrote: Dropbear, his guidelines are only for introducting a new suspect. Even when doing so, it is just a frame. Your reasoning, and thus motives and objectives, will still be there. I can't see how that will make everybody look the same. @redtooth you kind of screwed up in the way you posted this, because I feel a lot of people will opose this because of ego alone, so it will be harder to get a read on them.  I know... | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
FoS? Vote? might we expect a fullblown analysis with an accusation soon? I must say I look forward to it if you do it. Amber is certainly a scummy player and I plan to push his lynch today, but I can't tell if you're serious about him from this post. Of course I'm serious? I'm saying that he 1) hasn't posted much and 2) hasn't said much of anything. I'm saying that he needs to post more or else I'm going to be going after him. That's what I'm saying. | ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
On May 07 2011 03:37 sandroba wrote: I will consider it and possibly compromise if absolutely necessary. However, I feel that they are each essential:How do you feel about the changes I advocated in this post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=216644¤tpage=43#852 1st Sentence Disclaimer - Red letters in this game make you pause a second. When your name is red, it makes you pause a minute. The purpose is to make you second guess whether you should post this since your name will be in red. Am I discouraging activity? No. I am trying to weed out the random impulses and isolate the accusations people really believe in. "I don't want my name to show up in red 5 times so you are discouraging my activity." Well no because I honestly don't think you need to accuse 5 people as that means your focus is very divided or you aren't giving as much gravity to each accusation. 4 Quote Restriction - Honestly it's an arbitrary number. But if I make a fluid policy then people aren't going to heed it at all. The reason the rules are so adamant is because we need them to be so adamant. We need to stop somewhere and I think 4 is enough. You can always link to a quote or paraphrase an argument. You don't need to quote every single post to make a case. If you do then it's probably a case of tunneling and not actually quality scumhunting. Restrictions on Reintroductions of Arguments - This one was the policy I liked best. It is a direct attempt to counter tunneling. If you are accusing someone over and over again and nobody agrees with you, you probably need to stop. Continuing an argument nobody supports is derailing arguments that people do support. You are given 3 hours to prove your point and after that it is shelved. However, the way it works is that if someone did something obviously scummy then you don't have to be one to introduce the argument. If it's a general consensus scum move, someone else will jump on it. Disregarding Other People's Analysis - Of all the clauses, this is the most important. We have absolutely 0 power in enforcing this standard within the rules of the game. Since we can't ask Node to impose it, it has to be voluntary and obviously that hasn't worked out so well so far. This is the ratification clause that gives the biggest incentive you can get (acceptance into discussions) in exchange for upholding our high standards. | ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
Also, one of the clauses (Standard 8) allows you to provide simple comments about your suspicions. FoS Node because of [link to post] ^This is an acceptable (but slightly discouraged) post. It is accepted because not having it discourages discussion. It is slightly discouraged because it doesn't have any substance. I just don't want people making any more 10 paragraph, 10 quote accusations that obviously aren't going to go anywhere. I just don't want people to have to wade through 20 arguments occurring at the same time with such a dilution in pressure that scum doesn't even bother responding. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
2)I agree that quoting a lot of posts is sometimes detrimental to the analysis, because you run the risk of fooling yourself into forcing every single post a person's made to look scummy in some way, but if a player has made 6 posts that really make your case more solid and convincing, I see no reason to not quote them. 3)The problem is not everyone is present on the thread at a certain point in time. I sugest you change this to: Your analysis will be adressed by everybody (everybody present will be encouraged to post their opinion on it) when it reachs 3 sponsors. I feel like this is a way better to do this. 4)In the end of the day, good analysis is good analysis. If the person is making a sincere effort of trying to make a strong and quality analysis, but did not follow the standard X for whatever reason, it's just wrong (and pretty much impossible) to disregard it based on policy. | ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
On May 07 2011 04:05 sandroba wrote: 1) It's limited only to when you introduce a new accusation. AKA probably 2-3 per round for a talkative person. I don't see what the hassle is. Also, it makes it clear once more who is making the accusation. I'm fine to reducing it to just USERNAME at the top.1)Well, I would particulary feel very dumb posting the same line over and over everytime I do analysis. I think a lot of other players would feel the same way, so if you really want your guidelines to be followed, I sugest you remove it. 2)I agree that quoting a lot of posts is sometimes detrimental to the analysis, because you run the risk of fooling yourself into forcing every single post a person's made to look scummy in some way, but if a player has made 6 posts that really make your case more solid and convincing, I see no reason to not quote them. 3)The problem is not everyone is present on the thread at a certain point in time. I sugest you change this to: Your analysis will be adressed by everybody (everybody present will be encouraged to post their opinion on it) when it reachs 3 sponsors. I feel like this is a way better to do this. 4)In the end of the day, good analysis is good analysis. If the person is making a sincere effort of trying to make a strong and quality analysis, but did not follow the standard X for whatever reason, it's just wrong (and pretty much impossible) to disregard it based on policy. 2) Once again, you are limited to 4 quotes but not to the number of links and paraphrases. I made my FoS on Chaoser (the longest post in the thread probably) with 4 quotes (which weren't really quotes but used quote tags) . Also, I didn't address extending this standard to followup posts as well (right now I intended these only for initial accusations) but I'm hesitant to lift a general limit. We seem to just love quotewalling in this game. 3) That actually is a very good idea about the number of sponsors needed before it is addressed. I didn't really think through about time constraints. Would you think it's ok to do that instead of the 3hours/3pages thing but keep the rest of the provisions? Such as shelving after losing its last cosponsor, reintroduction rules, etc? 4) The only reasons why they would not want to follow these guidelines are: - They are scum - They are lazy - Ego None of the above are protown so nobody has a reason to not follow these guidelines. Again, I won't (and do not have the ability to) enforce this outside of myself. I will not hold you accountable if you don't read accusations made by someone who didn't follow this. It is your prerogative to continue reading the entirety of the thread. However, I personally will never address an accusation not made through this method and advocate for you to do the same. It incentivizes people to actually follow these high standards because they want their voices to be heard. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
Also, part of the reason why the guidelines will be so strictly enforced is so that I can't show favoritism. If you still don't trust me, I'm absolutely willing to hand over the control of this system to someone else. Actually I was hoping that someone else would step up. If my replacement of I am lynched or killed, someone else will have to take over then and the standards should remain consistent. | ||
|
Varpulis
United States2517 Posts
| ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
On May 07 2011 04:20 sandroba wrote: I'm fine with adjusting the guidelines.More importantly, if your goal is actually reduce the spam from this thread and make it easier to read (which is what I feel your trying to do), the strick guide lines will just make people not follow them and make your effort null. If you want really want people to follow them you should adjust them to make them more reasonable. Also too strickt rules, as you have said yourself, will remove a part of the fun of the game for a lot of posters. That will ultimately make them lose interest in the game and post very little, which is very detrimental to the town. I'm not fine to compromising the high standards that town should post by. At this point nobody is having "fun" anymore (last one to seem like he was having fun was Kurumi). People are trying to win and I believe this is the best way to achieve that. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
On May 07 2011 04:26 chaoser wrote: Analyzing any alignment right now is a waste of breathe. If anything, it gives scum an opportunity to manipulate lynches to make innocents look scummy. For example:You guys do realize that talking about whether we should follow redtooth's strict ass guidelines just allows for scum to seem like they're contributing but not really right? I appreciate the sentiment redtooth but all it does is let people post a whole lot of nothing. That's suspicious yo. Redtooth: Node is scummy! I'm going to lynch him asap! Node: Stfu no I'm not! Redtooth has been killed. He flipped green. Town: Kill Node! He had the most reason to kill redtooth! WIFOM ensues, followed shortly by chaos then scumwin. There is literally nothing that's needs to happen tonight that we can't do tomorrow morning with more information. That is why I'm not posting an argument against you right now because if I die or if you die then it is a waste of my breath. Alternatively, we can debate standards to set for town posting that will benefit us when day does come around so that town can hit the ground running. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
@redtooth I don't play this game professionally and the whole point of playing mafia for me is having fun, else I wouldn't be playing it. I can pretty much guarantee that everyone else here feels the same way. I don't know why you are assuming everyone here is not having fun. I for sure am. If people were not having fun they would not be posting here, they would just ask for sub. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
People always say that analysis at night is BAD and yet if you look at the best people who play the game (Ace, Foolishness, Ver, Qatol) they do a lot of their analysis at night. So I really don't buy into this let's not talk for 24 hours guys. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On May 07 2011 04:34 sandroba wrote: @chaoser No, we are discussing a plan to help improve the quality of the thread. You are trying to shut it down, instead of contributing to improve it. That's suspicious yo. @redtooth I don't play this game professionally and the whole point of playing mafia for me is having fun, else I wouldn't be playing it. I can pretty much guarantee that everyone else here feels the same way. I don't know why you are assuming everyone here is not having fun. I for sure am. If people were not having fun they would not be posting here, they would just ask for sub. Contributing to improve what?!!? There's no need to improve anything. If there was a need to actually put forth guidelines you don't think previous town would have done it? There's no need to place in an artificial system when an organic one already works. I'd tell you to go PM Ver, Foolishness, Qatol, Ace, etc. about the discussion being had right now except that's going outside the game. You have no idea how ego-driven this whole issue is and looks like. | ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
On May 07 2011 04:34 sandroba wrote: We're arguing semantics here. "Fun" to me is giggling and trolling and generally messing around. "Enjoyment" comes from enjoying the game with the primary source being the satisfaction of winning. If you go back to page 1, Node states clearly "Play to win. You have been warned." I'm not attempting to shut down your hunt of scum, just raise the quality. I'm not attempting to directly ruin your enjoyment, just trying to make sure that its enjoyable for me (who really wants to win) and for the less active (who really don't want to wade through shit).@redtooth I don't play this game professionally and the whole point of playing mafia for me is having fun, else I wouldn't be playing it. I can pretty much guarantee that everyone else here feels the same way. I don't know why you are assuming everyone here is not having fun. I for sure am. If people were not having fun they would not be posting here, they would just ask for sub. | ||
|
sandroba
Canada4998 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On May 07 2011 04:39 redtooth wrote: We're arguing semantics here. "Fun" to me is giggling and trolling and generally messing around. "Enjoyment" comes from enjoying the game with the primary source being the satisfaction of winning. If you go back to page 1, Node states clearly "Play to win. You have been warned." I'm not attempting to shut down your hunt of scum, just raise the quality. I'm not attempting to directly ruin your enjoyment, just trying to make sure that its enjoyable for me (who really wants to win) and for the less active (who really don't want to wade through shit). Where is the shit? Seriously? You know what shit is? Shit is spending half of day arguing about inactives. Shit is spending half of day talking about whether night should be spent doing analysis or not. Shit is spending half of day talking about the merits of suggesting blue action lists. We've had a VERY productive day. People pointed out good cases against sinani, Jackal might be onto something with Cthsazsa, Irish's case still stands, and people are starting to look at Amber. There's a shitload of GOOD ANALYSIS out there. Whether you agree it's good or not is your OPINION. It's not a FACT. What you're doing right now is shit. Go analysis someone, cause you haven't done that all game. You keep talking about it, but you haven't done any. You've been going on about me all game and I think that's more ego driven than anything else. I helped build a good town atmosphere, I don't know what you've done. | ||
| ||
