EPTOn December 22 2011 05:02 Foolishness wrote:
Just forget it, we're wasting each others' time.
Just forget it, we're wasting each others' time.
No, now you explain why you don't want to vote for L based on this.
Responsibility Mafia! - Page 3
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
No, now you explain why you don't want to vote for L based on this. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 04:09 L wrote: That's entirely not the case in my experience, nor is it the case on mafiascum. Mafiascum has roughly an 80% VT D1 lynch rate, a 10% Goon D1 lynch rate, and a 10%blue lynch rate. Oddly enough, the prevalence of D1 goon lynches is often a planned gambit to protect the roleblocker and end the game that way. Given the 13/3 setup, given a random distribution of hits you'd assume that mafia would be killed approximately 20% of the time on day 1. That isn't the case. Mafia have easy outs on D1 which means barring any catastrophic play, their deaths are planned if they occur on D1. I actually just looked at your post history ordered by threads and checked your last 7-8 games back until couples therapy. A single game had a mafia D1 lynched. Mafia used it as a gambit in a small format. Which means either you're lying, or the 17-18 games before that had a 60% mafia D1 lynch rate despite your games fitting perfectly into the standard MS pattern of play. As far as D1 lynches go, I'm pretty down with going after a confirmed liar. ##Vote: Palmar But seriously, I need to go do work. Later. Sure, I was the asshole who started the argument, but that doesn't matter. I just told L he was wrong about the success rates, at least from my experience. If I'm wrong or right doesn't however actually matter to the game at hand. If I said "Town always lynches mafia on day 1" I'm obviously lying, but that doesn't make me scum, and L knows this. Now, I happened to be telling the truth this time, as I proved, but really, that's irrelevant. What's important is that L is willing to lynch me based on a comment that doesn't affect the game we're playing, on some Lynch all Liars policy. There is no reason a townie would ever do what L did, and the simple explanation is that he must be scum. Like his only possible defense is that the idea is SO dumb that he wouldn't do it as scum, but I've been told L is good at this game. He saw a possible lynch and went for it. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
Now I'm getting you hanged. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 05:36 L wrote: RE: Irrelevance. It isn't irrelevant. Assume day 2 rolls around and you state "town always lynches mafia on day 1" in support of re-lynching after day 1 passed with a no-lynch verdict, when the reality is that town very RARELY lynches mafia on day 1. Does that statement seem just as innocuous now if the context implies that you're serious and have a motive behind the statement? No. This has been pretty much your only argument thusfar against me and it conceeds the point that there was a lie. So what's the motive and context behind this statement? I posted a large piece of analysis and you replied with a dismissive chaff post with a lie inside of it. The motive was to discredit my statement while not opening yourself to critique. The context is a slow thread and a near-bottom page position. If that's the case then Syllogism or Mr. Wiggles would be likely mafia buddies; post burying is a pretty standard way to avoid a piece of analysis which fucks your team without drawing attention to it. The alternative is that you're horrendous at this game and make anti-town posts, but are somehow lucky that this game's prevalence of pew pew pistols makes anti-town play somewhat less terrible on an individual level. (odd, that) I don't even understand what you're saying. Of course a statement like that is always irrelevant because it doesn't get anyone lynched. I guess if you allow no-lynches you can make the stretch that it's somewhat relevant, but it doesn't matter because I made no suggestion with the post. The fact you picked up on it as something of value to the game makes you mafia. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 06:11 syllogism wrote: Palmar: L's vote is pretty ridiculous, but it seems strange from mafia point of view as well considering the thread was dead and there was no need to divert attention elsewhere. It seems more like a poorly thought of angry town reaction to your irrelevant quibble with his setup analysis. GM please no more setup analysis, who would you lynch? I'm more interested in who you want to lynch. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
I'm going to read LSB's filter before I go to bed, I found WBG's initial case dumb/forced. That doesn't say anything about LSB's alignment though. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
However, he claims to be overloaded with work, and I myself would never use an excuse like that if I was scum, because his lack of activity hurts his team if he's town, and doesn't really change much if he's scum, since lurking is a viable strategy. So I'm not thrilled with the idea of lynching him. It's kind of shitty to do that as scum. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
Whenever people revert to using real life excuses for not contributing I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt to prove themselves another day, reason is that I'd like to be extended the same opportunity (which I was, for example in early experimental haunted mafia), if it ever comes up in games. I would have preferred he just straight up told us he didn't have time and sheeped his strongest townread instead of throwing out that case, but I'm not sure GM would ever do that. I won't directly oppose a lynch on him, if that's what you're asking, but I'd prefer lynching someone that is around to defend himself. Unless of course GM has the time to play now, in which case I'll stay up for an hour more to get a better read on him. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:34 VisceraEyes wrote: Yeah, this is fucking damning. At no point does GM state that the reason he has been absent was "because he was overloaded at work"...yet this is the sole reason Palmar is uncomfortable lynching GM. Tell me I'm not imagining things guys, go read GM's filter and see if it says ANYTHING to the effect of "I didn't contribute yesterday because I was overloaded at work" Are you now complaining about me being nice? On December 22 2011 01:58 GMarshal wrote: So, I'm not even caught up with the thread at this point, (I'm on like page 16), I just wanted to say that I've been occupied with other things and haven't had a chance to really do anything yet. I'll be trying to give the town something to work with when I get out of work in about 4 hours. Until then I have spreadsheets to sort and other such lovely joys. Sorry people, I hate to lurk, I'll do my best to make it up to you guys when I get back, but yesterday I was incredibly busy. On December 22 2011 06:08 GMarshal wrote: Actually a more fair comparison would be my play in PTP where I simply was overwhelmed with work the first two days. It happens, but as town or scum, I'm generally active, so please, analyze my behavior if you will, but inactivity is always going to be do to matters beyond my control. I sign up to play mafia, not to sit on my ass and lurk, thats no fun for anyone. On December 22 2011 07:31 GMarshal wrote: I sped read to catch up, the only posts I skipped were Chezes. That said, it was not a careful read through, it was more of a "fuck, fuck, fuck, I should have done this yesterday" style read, I usually like to read the thread 3-4 times before saying anything. Plus you know (I think) that my reading comprehension goes out the window when I'm exhausted On December 22 2011 07:19 GMarshal wrote: I'm running on like 3 hours of sleep, cut me some slack. Reviewing, I apparently didn't read the case against LSB carefully enough the first time around. I'm not even gonna argue that, you're an asshole. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
| ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:56 VisceraEyes wrote: But if he's busy, he's not being a dick, guy! If he's honestly just too busy to play, then he's not BEING a dick! Nope, because the benefits aren't equal for both factions. It is highly beneficial for scum to be away from the thread, and then just claim busy. It reduces discussion, reduces content that can be analysed on the scum, and it is a legit way of not getting lynched. It sucks for town to be away from the thread, and then claim busy. You might get lynched for non-contributions anyway, which is a free pass for scum on day one, and if you get by, you have still deprived town of your reads and contributions and you enter day 2 without having established your innocence. So yeah, I think it's a dick move to do it in general, but it's abusing an advantage if you're scum and preventing disaster if you're town. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
You've been asking the same questions as VE. Except for when you asked me about your case, and in between these posts I'm re-reading LSB's filter as I said earlier. And yeah, I always give people the benefit of the doubt once. Worst case scenario we're hunting 3 scum tonight. I mean yeah, I once gave Mig the benefit of the doubt like this and got burned for it (XLIV). I'll bring this up postgame because technically it's irrelevant to the game. It's just my opinion. I already explained my initial feelings about your case here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=12848511 | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
I also very much disagree with sandroba/curu being any kind of scummy. I actually have a pretty strong town read on them, my second strongest town read after Syllo I guess. All he did was accuse them of bandwagoning a case. ##Unvote ##Vote LSB | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 09:42 Jackal58 wrote: Foolishness. Yes. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 09:45 VisceraEyes wrote: Palmar if I may be so bold, what gives you a stronger town read from SLJ and Syllo than, say, me? They make sense in a townie way, and I agree with most or all of their reads. Especially Syllo's thoughts about the game. Just the few back and forth posts between me and him today especially reinforce my read, I doubt he would engage himself in those if he was scum. He'd probably dodge them or give more ambiguous answers. You don't make sense, but you don't make sense in a kind-of-a-townie way. I disagree with a fuckton of shit you do and say, so there is still a chance this is some new scum play. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
GM is telling the truth about his role, that Ver is trying to punish the practice of comparing role PMs I think this is the case. That's the kinda thing I expected when Ver mentioned punishing bad play, I know he hates people trying to use roles or similar stuff that's irrelevant to the game as whole, and unlike most of the bullshit (triggers wtf?) that's been talked about in the thread so far, this is something that would punish bad play. GM's counterclaim makes no sense for scum, especially since LSB was probably about to be lynched anyway (don't fucking claim at 3 am european time...) | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
On December 22 2011 14:19 bumatlarge wrote: Well gee. LSB was telling the truth, so there is definitely some tricky host business with where GM got the iea to make that counter-claim. I don't think that alone shows his colors one way or another. What do you think this has got to do with the hosts? Why are you posting like an ass? | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
I agree with everything prplhzery said. | ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
| ||
|
Palmar
Iceland22633 Posts
| ||
| ||
