| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Chezinu
United States7468 Posts
On June 25 2011 19:42 sandroba wrote: Can I ask you the same? You pretty much shaped up after GM called for your lynch on his first post. What's your opinion on him so far? Leaning mafia. I think he will probably die tonight. | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7468 Posts
On June 25 2011 13:32 Fishball wrote: Can't we just start the blood shed now. This is boring. I think night 0 is going to be big! ![[image loading]](http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg706/scaled.php?server=706&filename=doitj.jpg&res=medium) | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
| ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On June 25 2011 19:42 sandroba wrote: Can I ask you the same? You pretty much shaped up after GM called for your lynch on his first post. What's your opinion on him so far? "Shaped up" seems a little strong considering it was his first post.... On June 25 2011 19:12 Scamp wrote: /Confirm I must disagree with a lot of what Radfield says. It really seems like he wants to steer us to a no-lynch. Disagreement is fine. However, my intention is to try to avoid a no-lynch for Day 1. The likelyhood of being able to muster 10 votes on an active red player is next to zero for Day 1, as any case will be slim, and there will be 3 other reds directing suspicion in other ways. However, I'll admit that I forgot this was a Night 0 start, so that makes a Day 1 mafia lynch more likely. However, it's true that I don't think a no-lynch is all that bad in this set-up, Particularly a Day 1 no-lynch. With no-flip, we learn less each lynch than normal. Also, we very likely have a ton of blue roles, and with only 1 KP to worry about, time is on our side. A no-lynch Day 1 likely just gives us an extra lynch later on in the game. To be clear: I am not advocating a no-lynch, simply pointing out that in this set-up of all set-ups, a no-lynch is not terrible. /confirm | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=212874 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=216543 GMarshal: -Policy lynch Chezinu Day 1. Each game is different, so he certainly deserves a chance. So far he seems to playing fine so I don't agree with it. If neccessary (if we have one) he can be vigged. -Lynch both DT and DT's guilty. I feel that, while this is a good idea in a lot of circumstances, there are occasions where mafia could abuse this policy, especially given that its a closed setup and we don't know what roles are around. Definitely should be some discussion before enacting this automatically here. -Claims: I feel there are occasions where claiming is the right choice, but should be met with extreme scepticism. As there is no way to verify any claims, don't do it unless you have a damn good reason (medic protect/vig shot) Radfield: -Inactive Day 1 lynch. I agree with, unless something happens during Night 0. If you have a look at ROL's Experimental 1, you'll see that inactives lost us the game. Going into the last day we had people with a handful of posts each, totally unable to be analysed. One thing that should absolutely not be tolerated in a no-flip game is lurkers. -Claims: Same as above, we can see what will happen after night 0. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
| ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
Sorry if I held things up I was out last night and at work now. Can someone explain how a hospital runs out of flowing water? Ughgj | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
I would encourage everybody that is unfamiliar with RoL's experimental Mafia games to go read the links Decon has provided. They clearly illustrate the issues involved with inactive or lurking players just coasting in a non flip game. We were fortunate that RoL was able to replace one of them or we would have been royally screwed. + Show Spoiler + On June 25 2011 20:36 deconduo wrote: First off, I highly encourage people to have a look through RoL's experimental mafia games. These were mini no-flip games where everyone was anonymous: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=212874 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=216543 GMarshal: -Policy lynch Chezinu Day 1. Each game is different, so he certainly deserves a chance. So far he seems to playing fine so I don't agree with it. If neccessary (if we have one) he can be vigged. -Lynch both DT and DT's guilty. I feel that, while this is a good idea in a lot of circumstances, there are occasions where mafia could abuse this policy, especially given that its a closed setup and we don't know what roles are around. Definitely should be some discussion before enacting this automatically here. -Claims: I feel there are occasions where claiming is the right choice, but should be met with extreme scepticism. As there is no way to verify any claims, don't do it unless you have a damn good reason (medic protect/vig shot) Radfield: -Inactive Day 1 lynch. I agree with, unless something happens during Night 0. If you have a look at ROL's Experimental 1, you'll see that inactives lost us the game. Going into the last day we had people with a handful of posts each, totally unable to be analysed. One thing that should absolutely not be tolerated in a no-flip game is lurkers. -Claims: Same as above, we can see what will happen after night 0. If you do read those you will notice two people arguing about the efficacy of claiming. That would be Decon and I.  I still stand by my opinion that claims in a no flip game are all WIFOM and I probably won't believe you. Particularly in a game twice the size as those Decon linked. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
I am heading to bed now, but when I get back I will try to get my thoughts on no flips games out there. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On June 25 2011 23:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: You know after all the work I put into those games Jackal, I only got a B+ in that class. Although that probably had more to do with me never studying for quiz and averaing 10/15 then the work I did for that paper. I am heading to bed now, but when I get back I will try to get my thoughts on no flips games out there. Sorry to hear that. It was a novel concept. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On June 25 2011 23:23 Jackal58 wrote: Policy lynches are dumb. Lynch scum not dumb. I would encourage everybody that is unfamiliar with RoL's experimental Mafia games to go read the links Decon has provided. They clearly illustrate the issues involved with inactive or lurking players just coasting in a non flip game. We were fortunate that RoL was able to replace one of them or we would have been royally screwed. Jackal, are you saying you are for or against a Lurker lynch on day 1. You obviously accept that lurkers are a huge liability in a no-flip set-up, yet I would classify a lurker lynch as a policy lynch. Anyways, we shouldn't have a huge lurker problem this game based off the role list, as every single player on it can and should be active. In that case I think we may need to look seriously at whether or not a no-lynch(yes scamp) makes sense or not (vs lynching an active player). That discussion can be left alone for now though. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On June 25 2011 15:03 Chezinu wrote: The policy is unacceptable. GMarshal, I know this question may seem to be irrelevant, but I will explain why I asked this question after you have answered it. What is your favorite mafia moment? I won't pretend to know your reasoning, but I'll answer your question. I think my favorite moment was probably watching people (notably bill murray, smurfing as gryfindor) react to my cell organization plan in mafia XXXVII. I also really enjoyed being a Mole in PTP, particularly forcing the Palmar mislynch, as I felt that was the first time I really successfully pushed a lynch. I look forward to hearing your reasoning behind the question. I was going to go with "Seeing I got VT as my role in any game" but I feel like that would be a cheap answer to an interesting question. Also what is your favorite mafia moment? ^_^ On June 25 2011 14:56 GGQ wrote: Sure, I have one major problem that leaps out immediately from your policies. Your policy number one is to ignore all role claims. Your policy number two is based on specifically NOT ignoring a role claim. Wuddup wit dat? In a more general sense, I have a problem with your policy of having policies. I find policies restrictive and in my experience different situations require situational judgement. If you want to stress that role claims are very unreliable in this setup and we should be highly skeptical of them, I approve. If you want to make a "policy" that we all have to ignore them, I disapprove. The reason behind the conflict between policy 1 and 2, is that the town is pretty much unable to ignore a DT claim, especially considering how vociferous some DTs can be. With that policy we have a clear guideline of how to handle these situations. Am I going to adhere to them strictly? No, I'm not, but having them there discourages actions we don't want to see. I don't want anyone claiming, since its essentially all WIFOM, by establishing this policy I keep people from claiming without excellent reasons, as they know they will most likely be ignored if they do. The same goes with the DT policy, by doing this I avoid any kind of shenanigans where mafia decides to claim DT. Obviously we aren't going to adhere to these policies no matter what, but by establishing them as the basic procedure we follow, barring exceptional circumstances, we basically avoid those situations. Would you like it better if I called them "guidlines" rather than "policies'? I just feel like the word policy carries more weight. Addressing Radfeild, I fully agree with killing an inactive/lurker day 1, and am opposed to no lynching, just on principle. Sure with a no flip setup its going to be difficult to obtain as much information from the lynch as it would be in a open flip setup, but if we don't lynch then our chances of hitting scum are 0. If we do lynch and we analyze, then they are significantly higher than zero. To win we need to kill scum, not lynching does not lead to killing scum, it just gives scum more time to shoot at the town. Yes, sure they only have one KP, but the more we no-lynch the easier time they have controlling the lynch. Also if people want to see games with majority lynch, I do believe the first PYPs required a majority to lynch. This is a mechanic almost as significant as no flip, so really pay attention to it. | ||
|
ilovejonn
Canada2548 Posts
If we can't actually reach an agreement as town with focus to lynch someone, then I don't see why no-lynch is a bad idea at all. Yes, if we hit scum that's great, but we can also hit a blue role or a townie, and with no-flip we can't really analyze those who pushed for the lynch unless a Coroner comes out to confirm the death of the player. Sure, it gives scum a free hit at night, but I'd rather the town gather their act together and have the game slower paced so we have more time to analyze things instead having 2 dead townies per cycle. However, I think during the beginning phases of the game we should just go with a lynch. When we do have more information mid and late game, where we think the person being put up for lynch is very likely townie, then we should apply the no-lynch then. Again, no-lynch is definitely situational and can favor both town and scum. On the matter of lynching lurkers/inactives, I am in agreement that lurkers will be a problem late game and we should get rid of them, but I'd also like to see with this player roster will there actually be any lurkers before we do make a decision on who to lynch. I'd prefer strongly we look for whoever seems the most scummy from their posts first and place that as a priority before lynching lurkers. In the case we really don't have any potential suspects them I am all for lynching lurkers. Claims. Don't take any claim to be true, blah blah, no-flip, common knowledge. I agree if there is a DT claiming a check we lynch the DT first. Then if a Coroner exists in this game (which I think it should since this is no-flip), confirm whether or not the person is actually DT before we advocate the lynch on the checked target. However, this also means DT's should not needlessly claim unless in a dire situation or you've nailed mafia goon. We don't need you to claim if you've found anything but scum period. | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
The only problem is when mafia kill a DT we won't know so we can't look back at their posts to see if they breadcrumbed anything. | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Claims. Don't take any claim to be true, blah blah, no-flip, common knowledge. I agree if there is a DT claiming a check we lynch the DT first. Then if a Coroner exists in this game (which I think it should since this is no-flip), confirm whether or not the person is actually DT before we advocate the lynch on the checked target. However, this also means DT's should not needlessly claim unless in a dire situation or you've nailed mafia goon. We don't need you to claim if you've found anything but scum period. I think it is a better use of the coroner role to lynch the potential red first, and then the dt a day later. That way if it turns out the dt was telling the truth, we get to keep our dt alive. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On June 26 2011 01:20 Radfield wrote: Jackal, are you saying you are for or against a Lurker lynch on day 1. You obviously accept that lurkers are a huge liability in a no-flip set-up, yet I would classify a lurker lynch as a policy lynch. Anyways, we shouldn't have a huge lurker problem this game based off the role list, as every single player on it can and should be active. In that case I think we may need to look seriously at whether or not a no-lynch(yes scamp) makes sense or not (vs lynching an active player). That discussion can be left alone for now though. If we had started on day 1 I would not advocate a lynch all lurkers as policy. It's difficult to discern between lurkers and people that really do have IRL commitments. However this game started on night 0 so we should have an idea of activity levels by sometime on day 1. Hell I didn't even know I was in the game until a few hours ago. | ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
GMarshal, about So we hang any dt who claims to have found mafia and then we lynch their claimed check , why are lynching DT claim first? I know every guilty result claim should be regarded with skepticism (especially when one consecutively claims to have found guilty in which case your statement might be justified) but as long as the possibility of coroner - or any role that can somehow 'check' validity of one's statement - exists it should be net loss for us to lynch the DT first. Radfield basically ninja tl;dr'd what I wanted to say. | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:24 Radfield wrote: I think it is a better use of the coroner role to lynch the potential red first, and then the dt a day later. That way if it turns out the dt was telling the truth, we get to keep our dt alive. Only problem with that is we don't even know if we have a coroner, or how it works if we do. | ||
|
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:29 Hesmyrr wrote: GMarshal, about , why are lynching DT claim first? I know every guilty result claim should be regarded with skepticism (especially when one consecutively claims to have found guilty in which case your statement might be justified) but as long as the possibility of coroner - or any role that can somehow 'check' validity of one's statement - exists it should be net loss for us to lynch the DT first. Radfield basically ninja tl;dr'd what I wanted to say. We lynch the DT first as a deterrent to scum plans that revolve around getting one last lynch. We don't know what wonky powers the mafia might have this game, so the last thing we want is a situation where we are at lylo without knowing it an the mafia have to force a mislynch. If we maintain the policy of lynching the DT first then we deter any such situation. This is especially important because we have no way to confirm that what a coroner is telling us is true. It would be a ballsy move, but mafia could potentially claim DT and have a second member "confirm" them with a coroner check. Its different if the coroner has the results appear in the day post, but even so it might be manipulable. Basically with no way to verify anyone's role we need to lynch claimed DTs first to stop power plays from the mafia. Maybe its me being paranoid, but it seems to me that Ace's games are always punctuated by scum trying to carry off incredible plays. I'm trying to safeguard against situations like that. If we lynch the DT first we guarantee that nothing odd is going on. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g7262 tarik_tv6366 Grubby3131 Liquid`RaSZi1916 singsing1573 FrodaN1358 PiGStarcraft379 Fuzer  180QueenE116 NeuroSwarm43 Railgan30 |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
YoungYakov vs Lambo
SHIN vs TBD
Percival vs Shameless
Solar vs TBD
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Invitational
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
TerrOr vs IJ_Terran
rasowy vs Hazorath
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
