Responsibility Mafia! - Page 15

On December 21 2011 05:41 syllogism wrote:

Uh what, are you saying that if Curu is mafia, he can't make that post because Sandroba is asleep?

On December 21 2011 05:44 Jackal58 wrote:

I'm not alone in seeing that?
It's his day 1 post in Eldritch Horror. Only with different names.

On December 21 2011 06:00 bumatlarge wrote:


I'd love a comparison. Link?

On December 21 2011 06:47 SamuelLJackson wrote:
I support wbg's case on LSB. Fucking best post of this thread and maybe the only one worth reading.
##Vote LSB

@Bum The whole talk about mechanics and triggers and w/e the fuck is giving me a headache. And like you said scum knows all roles so don't you agree that's the easiest topic ever for them to discuss without having to commit? I'm ok with it as an opening but now it's time to move on. If you have a role or not that doesn't mean shit. Nobody cares. If you are town use it wisely.

@Chezinu I want to make you a deal. You split your posts in 1/2 content, 1/2 mental issues and I'll try to convince my other half to stop tunneling you for now. As much as I love your posts, curu has a point that you are currently being a hindrance, and if you are town you are setting up to be lynch bait later. Just mix up some clear content that everyone can discern and we can all be happy.

On December 21 2011 04:56 L wrote:
RE: LSB

You realize you *kinda* already did with your previous post, right?


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.

On December 21 2011 08:34 Foolishness wrote:
List of people who have made a post that's a giant wall of text:

wherebugsgo
bumatlarge
Ver
L

On December 21 2011 08:34 Foolishness wrote:
List of people who have made a post that's a giant wall of text:

wherebugsgo
bumatlarge
Ver
L

On December 21 2011 05:00 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Hi everybody. Just finished exams, so it's time to start the game.

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:
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.

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.

On December 21 2011 09:23 VisceraEyes wrote:
Re: LSB

Has very few posts. I disagree with your assessment that



...indicates hidden knowledge - SK is a fairly common Normal role, there's no reason to assume that it would be excluded in a closed setup. Further, there's no reason to assume that scum would have been alerted to the presence of a SK. Further still, there's no reason to assume that a good player like LSB would slip the knowledge IF he were scum and IF they were given the knowledge of a possible existing SK. It feels like reaching.

I also don't like your point about him not understanding players being indicative of his alignment. Like, why? One of the players in question is Chezinu, and I'm totally with him on not understanding Chezinu's stylie.

In general, I've got LSB hovering around the 'null' category pending further posts.

On December 21 2011 09:07 wherebugsgo wrote:


what do you think of LSB, Foolishness?

Same question to everyone else, but particularly Palmar.