On December 25 2011 13:22 bumatlarge wrote:Monsieur CaterpillarI like when jackal and palmar (even though he was a traitor) rofl'd at wiggles first post. I looked at his first post in cosmic horror, and thought they were fairly different. Still it was useful to see what wiggles posting as scum looks like, because hes someone I've mis-analyzed a few times (Sleeper Cell, was pretty sure scum, was town; Town in Insane Mafia 2, black). By the way, thanks -_- I just spent an hour reading through insane2. I'll say what scummy similarities I do see. + Show Spoiler +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: Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 16:47 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
/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. 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 August 24 2011 02:51 Mr. Wiggles wrote:##Vote: Eiii Where you at? Killing Eldricht would be nice to get rid of the third party, but it's not the biggest priority for town on Day 1, because it takes him a while to achieve his win condition. (Like at least 7 nights if greens aren't killed/lynched, unrealistic, I know, but just an example) As well, we have the psychologist who can cure insanity. So, to talk about the set-up a little, do people think it would be a good idea for the psychologist to claim his target at the end of night 1? It makes the psychologist claim early, but that way if he dies, then we have probably found the Eldricht Horror. The only way this wouldn't be the case, would be if mafia shot him, but then he could just claim earlier. (Because mafia don't really want to shoot him right away without reason, as he keeps them from losing the game to insanity as well) There's both Pro's and Con's to this, and it depends on the relative threat that we perceive the Eldricht Horror as. Pros: -Lets us catch the Eldricht Horror more easily, knowing as soon as the Psychologist dies. -Let's us coordinate the Psychologist a little (don't know if this is necessary) Cons: -Mafia know not to shoot the Psychologist, reducing the pool of townies (1 person so not that terrible) -Mafia can screw with town by killing the Psychologist and trying for a mislynch on his target. Personally, I don't really think it's worth it after actually writing out the Pros and Cons, but I don't think I'm going to delete this post because I spent like 5 minutes writing it, and it provides a good start for actual discussion. In my opinion, a better option is actually having the psychologist bread-crumb his visits, so that way, if he ever dies and flips, then we have a list of players cleared of being the Eldricht Horror, and we have a possible target for who the Third Party actually is. Discuss! One he goes right into the set-up and the other he completely ignores it. The most similar thing is how desperate wiggles is to talk about something. He doesn't want to talk about the set-up so he makes up whole paragraph instead of simply not talking about it. Though how can we blame him when every other person posts 5 lines of questions about every little thing. Maybe he was just covering his townie bases.
Of course I'm desperate to talk about something, because the thread wasn't moving very well, and we need things to talk about if we want to get the game moving along (which is partially the reason I'm taking the time to form a detailed response to this). So, I responded to some of the topics I found relevant. Also note, I said I didn't want to talk "much" about the mechanics, not that I didn't want to talk about them at all. I have thoughts on the mechanics that could be possible in this game, but I'm not going to write an essay about it, because it won't do much to help us, as it is conjecture, and it won't do anything to reveal my own, or others, alignments.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 21 2011 05:12 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 23:53 SamuelLJackson wrote:
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 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. 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. On December 21 2011 05:38 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 05:22 syllogism wrote:
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 I said that neither case is good as an argument for lynching someone, or for keeping someone alive. 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. Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 05:20 SamuelLJackson wrote:
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? 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. 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. On December 21 2011 10:37 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 10:18 Foolishness wrote:On December 21 2011 10:06 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I wanted to wait for LSB to respond, but I agree that the OP including something else does seem to imply the possibility of third parties or other, similar roles. We know the traitor is one of these, but there's the possibility of a role like SK or Survivor, as well. I've never seen Survivors in any games here, though, but SKs are (were?) fairly common.
Also, Foolishness, do you have any other thoughts you'd like to share? From my experience playing with you, you avoid posting a lot as scum, and also try to avoid having to contribute. This makes you look like an apathetic or busy townie, but in my games with you, you turned out to be scum. So, I'd rather you remain more active than that, so I can get a better read on you.
Gonna re-read LSB's posts and WBG's case on him. Ignore Chezinu, silence bugs, kill L I can guess the reason for the first one, any particular reasons for the latter two statements? About LSB: Right now, I'm getting a null-vibe off him. He hasn't contributed too much to the game so far, besides talking about mechanics/general things. His posts on these seem decently reasoned, and I can follow the logic behind them. He's also questioning people a lot, which I see as pretty normal for such an early stage in the game. He hasn't made any definite posts in regards to his thoughts on other players, though. So, he's null to me, until he starts talking about other players and pushing his opinion in the thread. Edit Before Posting: LSB posted some of his reads, so that makes me feel a little better about him. So, I don't particularly agree with WBG's analysis of LSB. Show nested quote +On December 21 2011 07:30 SamuelLJackson wrote:
Just to clarify, the part about wbg's case I find relevant is the bottom part and I'd like people to comment on it and LSB to respond to it.
LSB's posts so far seem very meek to me, always answering something or clarifying something. It really feels like he is actively avoiding pissing off people and he is making bullshit conclusions out of other players' posts. Doesn't feel like the confident townie LSB, it looks exactly the opposite. The points about his response regarding chezinu and the sk thing don't really tell me much though. Aren't these phrases contradictory? How can he be avoiding pissing people off when he's "making bullshit conclusions" out of their posts? That doesn't make much sense. I'd also like to hear from Sheth, He hasn't really done anything but come in, quote me, and say: "I agree". What are your thoughts? I'm not sure if wiggles just feels an attachment to these players or if really no one else was talking, but he went the extra mile to pressure townies who are dead now. In hindsight, it looks fairly distracting. He also put's in an extraordinary amout of effort into what happened last night, which honestly doesn't seem incredibly important. At a first glance it seems like scum picked off lesser vets to prevent suspicion on bigger names, which is alot of the people left. LSB seemed like the last thought on his mind, but I can't blame him for forcing the lynch through. + Show Spoiler +On December 24 2011 04:32 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2011 04:10 syllogism wrote:Jackal as a n1 mafia kill seems bizarre to me unless NKs are based on some sort of triggers as well. He only pushed for LSB and didn't post anything relevant during the night @GGQ: do you believe mafia has two role blockers or that chezinu is lying? One of the two have to be true for your scenario to be possible Wiggles: what exactly did you mean here What are the chances someone claims RB in the morning, though? That means we're either going to have to lynch them out of principle, or deal with bullshit for the next couple days. What do people plan to do, when someone claims RB, or claims their shot but the target doesn't die (vet or protected)? I see this as pretty likely to happen, regardless of if one is scum or not. Why did you consider such a scenario likely? Do you have the list of blues? Even if the setup has a bunch of vets/medics, it actually seems quite unlikely for a town vig to hit someone who is medic protected. Regardless, now that something like that has happened, what do you think should be done with RoL? Despite flipping traitor, I think Palmar was ironically right about you I considered that scenario likely for a few reasons: 1) If GM is scum, then he can't actually shoot. So, he's forced to either claim RB or that his target was scum and protected. 2) If GM was a Townie, and was telling the truth, then there's a good chance of Mafia RBing him to cause confusion. It would look the same as in case 1. 3) There's the possibility mafia have a medic. A mafia medic is only ever going to be protecting one of their own members on night 1, barring very odd circumstances. So, if GM had good aim, was town, but shot a protected scum, it would again look like case 1. I didn't need a list of blues to be able to tell that there was a pretty decent chance GM's shot wasn't going through. If he's scum, it's not going through for sure, and if he's town, then it's not going through if he gets RBed or shoots protected scum. Based on how he had been acting, I thought he was likely to be scum, and then we'd fall into case 1. When I said someone there, I was referring specifically to LSB and GM. I was asking what people wanted to do, because a lot of the time, people just let claimed RBed fake-claims live night after night. What I wanted, was to threaten GM with lynch if he claimed his shot didn't go through, and follow through on it, unless he actually gave us a very credible case for why someone else was scum, or some other kind of significant contribution. So, that post had nothing to do with if other people claim RB or not, just the claimed vigs. The reasons for RoL living right now, are as follows: 1) He was medic protected: Verdict: Unlikely, but possible While in a normal game, this might make sense, as he is considered a good vet, I don't see a good reason for it in this game. He had only one or two posts, with little content in them. He wasn't likely to be shot, and then if protected on the principle of being a vet, there are other players who fit that bill too, being Foolishness, BC, and L, and they were all more active and easier to get a read on than RoL. 2) GM was roleblocked: Verdict: Likely Like I wrote above, mafia would do this to cause confusion and make it look the same as if GM was scum. 3) GM shot someone else: Verdict: Possible I don't really see a reason for it, and like others have said, if he did, he bread-crumbed it in his list of reads. However, I don't really see the point in fake-claiming your shot after the deadline. What's the point? However, a lot of GM's other play didn't make sense to me, so maybe he did this, too. -_- 4) RoL is a Vet: Verdict: RoL didn't claim taking a hit, so no. So, right now, I think that we should treat RoL the same as any other player. I don't see a reason why GM's claimed shot on RoL should make a difference in how we treat RoL. RoL's failure to die, doesn't say much about his alignment, as we are unsure of who hit who, and if GM was possibly RBed. Instead, we just look at his posts, and pressure him to post, like any other player in this game.
I wanted to pressure those people, so I could get a better read off of them. I don't see how you can fault me for that, and how it matters at all if they're townies. If they're townies, they shouldn't react scummily, and they didn't. That's why, when I initially thought the hydra was suspicious, I didn't end up pushing for his lynch, because I didn't think he was scummy enough to. How do you get information out of people if they won't give it up voluntarily? You pressure them, and ask them questions. If you're direct, they shouldn't be able to ignore you, and if they do, that still gives you information about them.
About the other post, that was prompted by a question by Syllogism. He asked me what I meant by one of my posts, so I explained it to him. Would you rather I ignored him? I don't see how that could help things. As well, it didn't require an "extraordinary amount of effort", just 10 minutes of thinking of what the possibilities are. I'd personally be more interested in GGQ or L right now, who seem to have been able to put lots of effort into coming up with possible (and sometimes contorted) versions of last nights events, but who haven't seemed to have put as much effort into actually finding scum.
It seems wrong to accuse wiggles for posting, but he is doing it and none of what he is saying is pushing any useful thoughts forward. I'm all for analyzing possible occurrences, but GM is already dead, and chaoser said he shot him. I can lay alot of blame on syllogism to.
Honestly, next mafia game I'm on a team with syllo, I'll just tell him to ask all of us a bunch of questions so it looks like we are all doing something. When you post a question, and someone answers it, please explain why you did. Are you legitimately asking something you don't know the answer to? Or do you have some notebook you never plan on revealing until the game is over?
Wiggles is scummy to me, but people are too quiet, and he isn't. I'd rather wait for BC to have a catfight with RoL or something to see if wiggles is still worth wasting an hour reading some game that I screwed up in a year ago.
I'm unsure of what you mean by not "pushing any useful thoughts forward". Can you explain what you mean by useful? So far, I've been trying to pressure people, and get more information out of them to inform my reads. I think I've been moderately successful in that endeavor, as well.
Also, your point about GM is bad, because Chaoser did not claim the shot on him, so talking about the possibilities of last night is perfectly valid. In fact, if you thought Chaoser claimed the shot, I'm even more surprised you didn't look at L or GGQ, as they (and others I can't remember off the top of my head) spent significantly more time trying to come up with theories about what happened last night, but you've seemed to have ignored them. That seems suspicious, as you call out my one post as an extraordinary effort and a waste of time, but ignore those others who did the same and more. Why did you choose to do that?
@BC:
Why did you wait so long to claim the shot on GM? Why did you shoot GM? (I'm basically echoing RoL's sentiments here, I want to hear an answer).
|
EPT
