Responsibility Mafia! - Page 18

On December 21 2011 12:39 prplhz wrote:

You want lynch between Liquid`Sheth, VisceraEyes and me? Can you list the vets who get to freeload day1 if they want to?

On December 21 2011 10:04 Palmar wrote:
Actually, upon re-reading... are you claiming mason with Chez bum?

On December 21 2011 13:20 LSB wrote:

I would say that Foolishness, and maybe BC should be exempt from the day 1 lynch. Foolishness typically gets bullets thrown at him if he is town anyways.

On December 21 2011 12:40 kitaman27 wrote:
I'm going to bring up Sheth again, since he is posting in election mafia, but not here. I want to hear more from him. BC isn't really one to lurk as scum, but he needs to be pressured to post as well. We've already reached the half way point to day one.

People really need to stop talking about their roles. In past games, Ver has included role claim vig's to punish people and it would fit the responsibility theme perfectly.



Every player is a vet this game. If you're going to be against the lynch, it should be because you don't think he is scum. At this point, I'd probably consider it unless Foolishness is willing to show us he cares about the day one lynch.

On December 21 2011 12:43 Chezinu wrote:



Yay! Someone actually asked me in the thread to translate one of my posts! No one has ever done that. Here is a different translationn:

As most veterans are fully aware, role claiming will eventually come up. In previous games, I have jokingly and rather skillfully claimed to be a bank. However, I will not conduct such actions this game. This game is different than most games as I softly hinted earlier in hidden links. The mafia has a list of blue roles. If the blues claim, the mafia can verify such roles. If a townie fake claims a blue role, the mafia will know he is lying. With confusion being my specialty tactic, I have developed a strategy where a blue role can fake claim another blue role so that the mafia will believe the blue role is just a lying bored townie or a black role. So, I can pretend to be a blue role that fakeclaims another blue role to come off as a townie or a black role. For an example of a type of role to claim, just think of Ver's motives. He strives not to punish bad play but improper play. Since he wants us to type civilly, he could well have a nazi role that kills people for bad grammar. If he does have this role, he would have another role that will kill the grammar nazi. So if someone would fake claim this role, they would have to be aware of the grammar nazi hunter. Ver can't stand reading fragments where you have to fill information. He wants us to type as well-educated teamliquidians. In this matter, I support the bum rebellion against conforming to Ver's chains. Even if it cost me my life in this game, I will have my joy knowing I played as Chezinu and not Ver's puppet. But let us not get too caught up with the mechanics of the game for we still have to deal with lynches.

Mafia will be given a list or some or all of the blue roles in the game but not told how many of each exist in the game.

On December 21 2011 12:39 prplhz wrote:
@VisceraEyes

Uh, that might have come out wrong, I don't really condone voting for either Foolishness or Palmar right now.

So why are you voting for Foolishness?

I don't get why you think L has contributed a ton.

His first post was generic advice.
His second post didn't follow this generic advice, instead he rambles on about RNG for ages, concluding that it is bad even though it has evidently spurred discussion.
His third post, he concludes that LSB is either red or blue then just leaves it there. In the second part of his post he displays excellent logic I think, but then he kinda outs bumatlarge as blue. Why would a town aligned player ever give his blue reads like this?

@LSB

You want lynch between Liquid`Sheth, VisceraEyes and me? Can you list the vets who get to freeload day1 if they want to?

On December 21 2011 13:15 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
OK, this game is seriously wtf balls at the moment. To state a few things after my quick read through the thread. Bum and chez regardless of alignment have actively helped people regardless of what people may or may not believe. Their posts illustrate what I am saying. If you cannot find it now it will become apparent later.

As for the general play of this game. It is responsibility mafia. This should just mean Ver has made a game that is designed to stop blatant asshattery. Playing badly will get punished is the general take.

Now one point of this game that has me instantly glued to is the whole idea of RNG day 1 lynch. L is saying its anti town to base an initial lynch off it while palmar believes it is pro town. Guess what? L is right, Palmar is wrong.

RNG the person who is lynched gives no real onus to the player or players responsible for the name being brought up and then lynched. In a game with a no flip on role mechanic will also not let us glean information about the games setup. Since the advantage of discussing lynch choices day 1 is forcing people to take a stand via analysis not luck. If you analyze player x and they flip town you look slightly bad. If the logic used was poor then information was garnered on the accuser.

If you RNG a day 1 lynch it is a crap shot and you learn near nothing from the lynch except the few peoples stance on RNG who started the process.

Now as Palmar is pushing an obvious shitty play I will quote something of his.




Step your game up, for your post you have a filter of terribly uninspired posts talking about very neutral topics.

First of all, you warn people not to speculate, but in the next line you speculate that there is probably an SK based on something Ver said in the OP.

"There's a bigger question here, however, which is what we're going to do with the first vote.

RNG is probably the worst possible idea; gives us next to zero information regarding how people argue and its practically an excuse for people to not post anything because there's no element of responsibility attached to it. Either way, we're going to want ideas down on the table asap."

So, the obvious question becomes which metric SHOULD we use. This is the question that RNG ends up proposing because it runs on the assumption that a) A lynch is better than no-lynch (I agree, in general) and b) that discussion surrounding the RNG could lead to a better target. I agree with a), but think that b) implies that we focus ourselves on determining a characteristic which outperforms RNG. This is why I think the plan is stupid; because IT ISN'T ONE. I'm super exhausted, but I'll think up some criteria for a day 1 lynch tomorrow.

On December 21 2011 15:51 chaoser wrote:
Finally, L is currently semi-scummy to me. In his first post he addresses the issue of RNG lynching and then says that we need a new metric to decide on who to lynch but never delivers on it, merely saying:



He never provides anything "asap." I noticed this and though other people brought it up (bum I think) and he responded to it by saying that he's playing it slow at the moment, it still seems scummy due to the fact that he said ideas should be on the table "asap" and yet never gives his own, merely stating in his next post:



But the whole concept of having a metric (he talks about how the old metric was talking about lynching lurkers) is to create discussion and allow for information gathering (something RNG hindered). So why would you put off thinking up a new metric criteria till tomorrow when discussion will already have been going on and information will already have been created. It makes no sense to say I will think of something to create discussion tomorrow when by that time we'll already be discussing. It seems like he's trying to say he's got ideas for us but by the time he says he can deliver on them (tomorrow) we'll have no need for them and thus he doesn't actually have to make good on his promise. I'mma vote first and then wait for you to post more.

##Vote: L

RE: Metric.

I've already thought it up.

I even said so at the end of my paragraph on L.

"I'mma vote first and then wait for you to post more."

On December 21 2011 13:25 bumatlarge wrote:
What you think?

On December 21 2011 17:15 chaoser wrote:
I didn't say I think he's scummy "based on L saying that he'll decide who he's going to vote for after there's more information in the thread for him to base it on". I never said that. I said I think he's scummy because he said it's important to find a new "metric" for this game that is not "RNG" or "lynching lurking" to create conversation in a meaningful way but then promised to tell us what that new metric at a time at which it was no longer useful. This allows him to never make good on his promise of actually contributing to help town.

If you notice, most of my reads have the general note of: need more info/would like more posts. So I never said or even implied that waiting until there's more information to base a conclusion on someone is scummy. I even said so at the end of my paragraph on L.

If I could not lynch L today then I currently don't know who I would lynch since only his posts have sent up the strongest flares for me. I'd rather not policy lynch and there's still 24 hours left in the day so I'd wait and see on some of my other candidates of suspicion.



What is it?