EPTOn December 17 2011 12:44 ZBot wrote:
[b][blue]
L (0):kitaman27, -kitaman27
[b][blue]
Day 1 Vote Count
L (0):
That's strange, apparently I've voted and unvoted for L already? Are there secret voting mechanics in play?
Responsibility Mafia! - Page 14
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
That's strange, apparently I've voted and unvoted for L already? Are there secret voting mechanics in play? | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
As far as Policy Lynching the hydra...no. I don't understand GM's irrational hatred for them, but I can say with certainty that as far as Policy Lynches go, I'd prefer a spammy Chezinu lynch over a blind hydra lynch 100% of the time. If the hydra starts acting scummy, then we'll talk. But lynching just for being a hydra, when both players are known to be relatively skilled at the game, no thanks. Now, onto content that concerns them both. SamJackson asks Chez (specifically) about his feelings on lynching the traitor (specifically). This is strange to me. First of all, I don't know why they would ask Chez about that. That's literally asking "How do you feel about lynching scum?"......really? Why? What is the point of asking this question? It looks like a blatant attempt to appear to be contributing. I don't like it, and I'd like some clarification on the purpose of the question. Chez' response is in line with what I perceive as his style, but obviously "Nooooooooooooo!" reads like he's either the traitor and doesn't want to get lynched, or scum and doesn't want his buddy lynched. It's very obviously a joke, but I don't like it any more than I like the question itself. The hydra then goes on to insist that Chez "claimed traitor" and believes the claim. The whole exchange is fishy to me, and I'm watching both players (slots?) with a critical eye. HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS!!!! Chezinu: Are you the Traitor? Did you expect to be seen as the Traitor given your response to SamJack's question? Sand/Curu: What was the purpose of your question? Did you expect scum to answer your question truthfully? If not, why did you ask it? If so, are you retarded? | ||
|
SamuelLJackson
223 Posts
On December 20 2011 15:05 Chezinu wrote: I love you bumatlarge...May I join your family? You seem to know your way around this game as if you know what is going on.. Well, you have the men in black at your service. All you have to do is name him. ![[image loading]](http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/5857/hahamfp.png) There is no argument that this post had any other purpose than to claim Traitor. That wasn't what I wanted to know, I wanted to know why Chezinu was claiming Traitor. At the time I didn't want to outright call it out in thread in case he had some hidden purpose but clearly he didn't. GMarshal for all your talk on working on analysis you sure haven't contributed any opinions besides your "irrational hatred." /Curu | ||
Ver
United States2186 Posts
On December 21 2011 03:10 kitaman27 wrote: That's strange, apparently I've voted and unvoted for L already? Are there secret voting mechanics in play? [b][blue]If the vote count is messed up please pm Incognito. He's the one who is handling zbot. | ||
|
VisceraEyes
United States21170 Posts
On December 21 2011 03:57 SamuelLJackson wrote: I dunno. I thought that maybe he could have some super secret hidden purpose for trying to claim Traitor like that. There is no argument that this post had any other purpose than to claim Traitor. That wasn't what I wanted to know, I wanted to know why Chezinu was claiming Traitor. At the time I didn't want to outright call it out in thread in case he had some hidden purpose but clearly he didn't. GMarshal for all your talk on working on analysis you sure haven't contributed any opinions besides your "irrational hatred." /Curu Thanks for responding to my post without answering my questions! ##Vote: SamuelLJackson | ||
|
SamuelLJackson
223 Posts
/Curu | ||
|
SamuelLJackson
223 Posts
What's your rationale for voting me over Chezinu? Because he's attempted to contribute? His contributions so far include nonsensically following bum. He hasn't answered anyone's questions in any manner that makes sense. Are you trying to argue that that post wasn't claiming Traitor? That was the only purpose for that post. What do you think his motivations were for that post since you don't seem to believe he was claiming Traitor? The post was so obviously doing it that everyone would have been able to see it without me pointing it out. But everyone is just dismissing it as "Chezinu being Chezinu" which is perfect for if he actually is the Traitor. As Town there is no motivation to do what he did, when asked about it he offered absolutely nothing that made sense. /Curu | ||
|
Incognito
United States2071 Posts
On December 21 2011 03:10 kitaman27 wrote: That's strange, apparently I've voted and unvoted for L already? Are there secret voting mechanics in play? [b][blue]I have a feeling there is a bug in the code. Will try to get this resolved asap. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On December 21 2011 02:00 LSB wrote: So you are saying we should all role claim right now? You realize you *kinda* already did with your previous post, right? Again.... what's up with you and triggers.... Just because someone has a trigger doesn't mean they are mafia. That section in particular makes a statement about triggers, and in particular says that town has triggers in an affirmative manner. You state this directly. The odd thing is that your post is structured to make it look like speculation, but you made an affirmative statement. This wasn't "Its possible that town has triggers too" it was "town has triggers too". The reason why I said *kinda* is that Chez said (and I haven't gone to the OP post yet to confirm) that mafia know some of the town roles. If that's the case, they might also know about some town conditional roles and be able to claim that they exist with certainty. So you're either mafia or you have a triggered role. And onto different matters: RE: Hindered comment from BumatLarge Yep. That's a good way of putting it. I haven't played in a shitton of time and I have no idea who most of the players are or if they'd benefit from extensive day 1 analysis. I also don't know if any of these triggers would be set off by some kind of explaining, or how the day 1 meta works anymore. Given all those things I figured it would be smarter to start off slow. So, if you push my accelerant idea, it would mean that at least some of the triggers activate powers that kill people. That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't the possibility for other triggered abilities. That should be pretty obvious. This was also an implicit roleclaim on my part which should only have been obvious to people with triggers themselves. But then you asked me to push more on the point, and stated that you were sad that I hadn't. This leads me to believe that you also have a triggered role and all of the above was obvious to you, but that my explanation might activate your trigger, or that you wanted a claim out of me. And that's berry interesting because asides from chez claiming traitor, it seems like all the people who have put information about their role into the game implicitly or explicitly thusfar have triggers to their role. This means we're going to hit a situation wherein we're going to have fucking ugly dt and medic claims with triggers and shit to sort through. FUCK. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
First thing's first, I'm not going to spend much time trying to guess specific role/game mechanics. Why? Because the set-up is closed, and there's no way to figure it out with no flips (Besides people claiming). Everything else is complete conjecture. The game seems like it's been designed to punish bad play though, so I'm just going to try to not play badly. Also, I think Mafia mechanics if they exist will be built around punishing bad play as well. So stuff like lurker-vigs, claim-vigs, maybe stuff like that, but I'm going to stop now. If people want my general thoughts on possible game mechanics, then I'll post them. Secondly, my thoughts on Chezinu. I'm not going to policy lynch him unless someone can prove he's done something worth lynching him for. There's two possibilities as far as lynching him goes, because I don't see him actually giving up information when pressured. 1) We policy lynch him, and waste all of day 1. 2) We don't lynch him, and as the game goes on, he'll either get shot, or give up more information about himself. (Whether he means to or not). Basically, I don't feel like lynching anyone only because they're useless. I want to lynch someone because they're scummy. Maybe they're scummy and useless, but that's just incidental. Chezinu has the ability to contribute to the town, and so he doesn't make a good policy lynch. What we have to look for is if he's still around later in the game, and then at how he's playing. I don't see him exerting too much influence on the town, so as long as people are aware of him, and deal with him later if he remains unreadable or noncontributory, then I think we're good. Next, BC said he's going to post: On December 20 2011 16:47 BloodyC0bbler wrote: Hasn't done so yet, though. I'll give him time, but I think we should pay close attention to players who are lurking. I've had games with BC, Foolishness, and FW where they just lurked as mafia all the way until day 3 or later with minimal contribution to the thread. If a player refuses to help, or contribute, then we should shoot/lynch them before they can make it too far along in the game. This goes for everyone./confirming my role however I will not be posting until I sober the F up. Just got home from a staff party and can barely organize coherent thought. Don't even know how long this took to write without errors. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On December 20 2011 23:53 SamuelLJackson wrote: Also, I found this curious, in one of the posts that the hydra made, specifically the bolded part, and I'm wondering what other people think about it.GMarshal that's such stupid reasoning. If anything having two people post on the account just gives you twice as many chances to slipup and twice the scum tendencies. It's much more beneficial for Town since we can bounce ideas off each other and feed each other - as Mafia you already have that channel of communication with the rest of your teammates. /Curu GM just said that he wants to kill the hydra because he finds it hard to read. So, in defense, the hydra says what I quoted. What I find interesting, is that he defends the use of the hydra by saying it's more beneficial for town than mafia. However, the choice to play as a hydra comes before the game even starts. So, he's trying to defend his being a hydra as being pro-town, when it was a decision that was made before alignments. As well, why not attack GM's reasoning itself? He does this in part, but it's more that he says the contrary, when either case has a chance of being correct, and is terrible reasoning for keeping someone alive/lynching them anyways. It's like if I said you're scum because your name is Tim, and instead of telling me how silly my argument is, you argue that your name being Tim makes you more likely to be town. It doesn't make a lot of sense. What do people think about the fact that he's defending himself on the basis of a hydra being pro-town when the choice is made before he knows if he's town, and not arguing against GM's reasoning itself, but rather trying to spin himself as being easy to catch as scum? This stuck out for me, and I'm curious as to what others think. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
First the bolded, then the not bolded. | ||
|
SamuelLJackson
223 Posts
Back to VE's post you ridiculed me for asking Chezinu if he "wants to lynch scum," saying I am trying to appear to contribute. Then you turn around and ask Chezinu if he IS scum with even more useless questions. What's your purpose there? | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22632 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Also I have no school :D :D :D Anyway, on to business. LSB smells like scum. The themes here are thinly-veiled, completely unoriginal "contributions" and accidental slips of knowledge only scum would have. On December 21 2011 01:52 LSB wrote: Why in the world are we discussing day 1 RNG? It has never happened and never will happen -.- Congratulations, you've now said something about every single other player has said already. If you don't want the discussion to be about RNG, don't bring it up. Just ignore that trash and focus on what's actually relevant; finding scum. You as town would know this, especially if you are good (and I think you know you're good, since pre-game you said you hope you wouldn't get shot) On December 21 2011 01:52 LSB wrote: Just knowing the roles doesn't mean anything. I can tell you there is probably a cop, doc, sk, vig, ect ect. What does that help you with? Night actions I guess. There is a big difference between knowing who has who's role, and just knowing the list of roles. For example, if we knew that there was a traitor, we wouldn't do much. However if we knew that Chez was the traitor, that would be an easy day 1 lynch. Logically, this sounds okay, particularly the second part about how if we know that Chezinu is traitor, we could lynch him. However, check out the highlighted thing he finds probable; SK. How do you know there is "probably" an SK LSB? Sure, I suppose if you assume this is a standardish game you might reasonably be able to get away with saying there's a cop, a doc, and a vig. But an SK? That's fishy as hell. Now it might be true that we probably can't do much with just the information that a traitor exists. But if we know an SK exists, that's huge. Indeed, this is the one role that you DEFINITELY would like to know merely about the existence of. There's a massive difference between knowing there's an SK and knowing there isn't. That knowledge is powerful in the hands of town because we know that we can potentially pit scum and SK against each other, or that we have an extra scum to look for, basically. You wouldn't suggest that an SK is probable unless you already had that information. On December 21 2011 01:52 LSB wrote: I swear I played with normal Chez once, but then again he was mafia that time... iirc. Not like that helps make the decision. I'll put him under the category of "hard to read". Lynching someone who is hard to read is a bad idea because 1) it is a useless lynch so we don't get that much discussion / information. 2) hard to read =/= mafia. Actually it probably means useless town. I'll just wait for chez to regain his sanity WHOA Of course it helps with the decision! You can compare his play as scum from then to here, and see if the meta matches. What really bothers me about this is the way LSB phrased this sentence. "Chez was mafia that game, that doesn't help here." Wait what? You know he's not mafia this game? Only scum know for sure who is and isn't scum, and this statement is basically a slip saying "I think Chezinu is unreadable, but here's this one time I played with him when he was scum....but it's not helpful here because he's not scum here." Last thing of note is his relative timidity with respect to actually taking a stand about something. In addition, he repeatedly "misunderstands" people. This is something I've noticed is common among better scum players: Basically, he repeatedly looks for disagreement or probes to find clarification that he can perhaps use against another player. Look at these posts: On December 21 2011 01:57 LSB wrote: 1) This speculates on word triggers. Are they actually in the game? We have no idea, and even if there are any, it doesn't necessarily mean the person is mafia. 2) What's wrong with talking to one specific person... Won't argue with you here. I agree the post doesn't say much Again.... what's up with you and triggers.... Just because someone has a trigger doesn't mean they are mafia. On December 21 2011 02:00 LSB wrote: So you are saying we should all role claim right now? On December 21 2011 02:23 LSB wrote: I'm very confused. When you are saying Is it in response to this statement? If not, what statement is it in response to? If it is, are you defending chez's statement that people should straight out claim right now? Or are you introducing an obvious yet irrelevant point? On December 21 2011 02:35 LSB wrote: Whatever you are trying to say here. I'm still trying to understand your posts and what you are getting at Notice how in most of these posts, LSB attempts to "clarify" something and claims misunderstanding. In some of the circumstances, this is actually comical because some of the inferences LSB makes are ludicrous. LSB asks if syllogism suggests we should all roleclaim right now. The obvious answer is no, no one in their right mind would suggest a mass roleclaim day 1, and I don't think syllo is the type of crazy player to be suggesting that. So then why ask a question you already know the answer to? Perhaps to undermine that person later with a false assertion that they wanted a mass roleclaim day 1? That sounds pretty scummy! Later LSB does something similar with what Chezinu said. He makes a statement that clearly shows either intentional misunderstanding or probing for future mistakes, by suggesting Chezinu was saying that people should be roleclaiming. I don't think that was what Chezinu was doing. I really don't see how that last paragraph LSB quoted from Chezinu could be anything but a warning about the setup, not a call for people to be claiming, as Chezinu says "claiming is bound to come up," not that it is bound to come up now. As he is a very good town player, I doubt LSB missed something I didn't, especially four consecutive times with two different players. ##vote LSB | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
On December 21 2011 05:22 syllogism wrote: I said that neither case is good as an argument for lynching someone, or for keeping someone alive.Curu's reasoning appears solid; GM asserted that hydra's are inherently hard to read and therefore according to him anti-town, while Curu pointed out they actually benefit town because two players are more effective than one. How can you say that the former is a good reason to lynch someone while the latter isn't a good reason to keep someone alive? In the end all that matters is whether they are being useful and making sense, which is what your previous post was talking about GM's post wasn't a good reason to lynch someone. Curu's post wasn't a good reason to keep someone alive. I said neither were good reasons for anything. On December 21 2011 05:20 SamuelLJackson wrote: Ok, that makes a bit more sense. I still have to ask, though, why do you even bother arguing that hydra's are better for town? GM doesn't say that "hydras are inherently worse for Town", he says that they're hard to read, with no reasoning. So, to counter-act that, you give your own argument with no reasoning that they are easy to read.Is there anything wrong with my reasoning Wiggles? The fact is that a Town hydra is stronger than a scum hydra. I'm not saying it makes me more likely to be Town, I'm saying GMarshal's initial reasoning that hydras are inherently worse for Town is flawed. The fact that he tried to justify what he originally said was "irrational hatred" before the game with real reasoning once the game had started doesn't sit right with me. Back to VE's post you ridiculed me for asking Chezinu if he "wants to lynch scum," saying I am trying to appear to contribute. Then you turn around and ask Chezinu if he IS scum with even more useless questions. What's your purpose there? However, both arguments have the potential to be true, but neither of you provided enough explanation or evidence to support your claim. So, why bother even trying to say the opposite? Why not just say that GM's reason for voting you is bad (which it is), and explain why? Instead you try to spin it off that you'll be easy to read this game, which doesn't sit well with me. What's the motivation for doing so? That's what I'm wondering. | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
##Unvote SamuelLJackson | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On December 21 2011 05:39 bumatlarge wrote: Hold off on voting Samuel for now, I made a mistake. Curu couldn't have really meant anything then exactly what he said, since that would be kinda unfair to his other half to go make some scummy incentive. It was an innocent accusation against chezinu's posts. I'll delve more into it later, but it's kinda the concept of a hydras fault. I don't really see the WIFOM at the moment, so until I review everything else, I'm going to hold my vote. ##Unvote SamuelLJackson Uh what, are you saying that if Curu is mafia, he can't make that post because Sandroba is asleep? | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On December 21 2011 05:32 Palmar wrote: rofl wiggles rolled scum again. I'm not alone in seeing that? It's his day 1 post in Eldritch Horror. Only with different names. | ||
| ||
