|Forum Index > TL Mafia|
On December 19 2011 16:02 prplhz wrote:
Just a little pre-alignment disclaimer: I'll possibly be somewhat unavailable during parts of December 24th and December 26th because of birthday parties.
Yeah, the Christ gets down. 1 day isn't enough.
On December 20 2011 06:15 prplhz wrote:
Feel free to put in OP.
RebirthOfLeGenD's filter works alright, it's just that he hasn't posted in this thread yet.
I don't even care if you're scum, you get a pass d1 from me for THIS POST RIGHT HERE. *praise*
U da man prpl.
I voted in the voting thread, but I didn't notice anyone named "200 crunches" on the playerlist when I looked at the current votecount.
On December 20 2011 14:17 SamuelLJackson wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2011 14:01 VisceraEyes wrote:
I tried to get a straight answer from Ace about this in the game I played with him, but he was...not willing to play with me. What good does an RNG vote do for town? Honestly, if we all decide that's how we start off, no one is going to be dumb enough to try and derail the lynch if it happens to land on scum, so really, what information can possibly be gained? I'm serious, this has been bugging me ever since that game because he flipped town and I don't understand the motivation.
It's essentially the same start to the game as the random voting stage that takes place on mafiascum (you play there don't you?). It's something to kick the game off and generate discussion.
bum your first post is beyond bad. You're deciding that we should be the subject of any impasse in votes with justification which is the exact opposite of RNG (while still trying to disguise it as RNG). I hope you put more thought and logic into your next posts.
I get RVS, but the results wouldn't be "random" because it would involve trusting a "random" member of town to produce "unbiased random" results, which is not possible.
And on MafiaScum, the votes in RVS are rarely "random", that's a pretty common misnomer over there.
Anyway, I don't condone it. I can't get past the 'no information' aspect of RNG voting D1.
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?
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.
Show nested quote +
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."
Thanks for responding to my post without answering my questions!
Okay, looking back, the post you're referencing WAS before you asked him the question, I was assuming that the post you quoted was after you'd asked him about lynching the Traitor. My rationale was that I thought you asked the question and then he made the statement you quoted, so it seemed to me that you were leading him into behaving in such a way that would make it seem like he was claiming Traitor. That was my bad.
I have to reread with that in mind before I make a judgment on whether or not I believe Chezinu to have slipped/misjudged the perceptiveness of town.
Has very few posts. I disagree with your assessment that
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.
...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.
Your bit about the Chezinu meta is intriguing though, I have to admit. I read it as "Because he was scum, he could have been actively subverting his meta, thereby rendering it useless", but your version of what he could have been saying makes sense too...I'd like to hear what LSB has to say on the matter.
My point about him being good was that the slips you're suggesting are like, noob slips. I'm well aware that vets are capable of slipping too, but they're far less likely to make the slips you're suggesting. That's all I'm saying.
Anyway, I've said my piece about LSB, and I'm waiting for him to respond to your case before I give it any further thought.
On December 21 2011 10:19 Palmar 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
Best post in the thread yet.
Why all the L hate? I read L's first post and it was like BAM, metal intro music, bitches going crazy, etc. His second post gave me the same feeling. What has got you guys all worked up about L? I mean, aside from the THREE in-game posts he's made? They all appear to be fairly good contributions...am I missing something?
For the record, L's posts ALL gave me something to think about while reading this game, and I'll tell you what they were...right now.
On December 20 2011 15:30 L wrote:
Alright, straight off the bat people are saying that we need good posts.
Not only is the concept of the game surrounding the idea that poor play will be punished, but there's also the notion that we've got relatively few players. in the game. 5 to 15 or so. This means that best case scenario, we can win day 5 through lynches alone, but that's a rather long timeframe to close out a game. So poor play seems to be some form of game accelerant, and the 'poorer' the play, the less in our favor it seems to be.
So! What do we do? Post with content and condense your points. Keep your short posts to yourself and clump them up to make substantive comments. I'd say that posts between 6 and 15 lines are large enough to be substantive, but short enough to be read. But that shit is obvious. 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. And not like dicks, either. Cut it out bum/prplhz.
Like, it seems obvious, but I hadn't thought about it in quite this way until L pointed it out.
On December 20 2011 18:59 L wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2011 18:35 Palmar wrote:
On December 20 2011 18:33 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
It's day 1, what else would you like him to currently say?
There's plenty of things that can be prodded already in the thread.
Like what, exactly? Also, please don't post one liners. They inflate the thread size and make it tedious to read through content later.
RNG doesn't force people to make a move one way or another and provides less information regarding people's inclinations than having someone pick a metric for a day 1 play to be made. The "shoot the inactive" metric was the standard when games were substantially larger, people talked less, and the metric itself was generally not held onto, just used as a prod to get people talking. As far as I'm concerned, RNG just cedes the first day's information content unless someone with a particularly interesting role gets selected.
Please tell me how a random target provides more information than one who we can pick? It seems like by definition that RNG eliminates at least one layer of information: the choice. And there's no real benefit to the tradeoff in terms of preventing someone from hiding their kill attempt: If someone wants to get someone in particular put under the gun, they can fake a RNG call to make them the presumed target.
If there's anything pro-town about the RNG plan its that it removes any fear to assigning a presumption of lynch to start discussion off. I don't see why there isn't a better metric to use than 'none' for that purpose. And even then, it doesn't seem like the attempt actually fostered the discussion you're saying it would, but maybe that's because the current RNG specified target hasn't been around in the thread. Either way, it seems like an empty placeholder topic. The previous placeholder topic, inactivity, served a practical purpose. I fail to see what reliable benefit comes from this one.
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.
RE: The hydra
I have no idea what/who this is, but I think I happened across it twice reading the thread. Is this someone's nickname? I haven't kept up with the last few (months of) games, so hook a brother up.
Sleep time. Peace!
RE: Post formatting
This is a very handy format and will make it easier to zip through pages to find discussions on a certain topic. Feel free to use it. Not sure how well it'll work when quoted, though.
1) I'm generally disliking your 1-line approach to this game, and hope you ramp it up at some point. L agrees with me. I like L.
2) His explanation of RNG made me feel all warm and fuzzy too, but I don't know if it's because I share the sentiment, or because it was an actual attempt to answer the question I specifically posed...the world may never know.
3) I actually will be adopting this format of posting, because I agree that it makes it much easier to locate a topic you're interested in discussing while going through pages of crazy shit (Chez did/didn't claim traitor, RNG discussion, lolTriggers). Although for people posting one line at a time, I can see how this would be a non-issue.
On December 21 2011 04:56 L wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 21 2011 02:00 LSB wrote:
On December 21 2011 01:53 syllogism wrote:
That is incorrect; for instance information roles have to role claim because the lack of role flips prevents us from just going through their post history in order to figure out their investigation results and such. Indeed the threat of night kill might make claiming relatively early worth considering, even if you only have town results. Similarly if a medic protects someone and gets lynched without claiming the protection, mafia can later on gamble and claim the protection. The latter is a bit far fetched scenario, but a strict no claiming strategy is not good. Actually another advantage is that it will be easier later on to determine whether certain claims make sense in terms of balance.
So you are saying we should all role claim right now?
You realize you *kinda* already did with your previous post, right?
Show nested quote +
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.
I actually think you just need to read this whole post and really think about what it says. I liked the whole fucking thing. There seems to be a lot of crazy shit floating around regarding the triggers, and mafia are going to be able to hide in it when they actually become an issue. Establishing that fact NOW is going to help us THEN, regardless of whether you think he's contributing or not.
Are you just picking on the low-post-count-guy Palmar? Please don't be that guy. Or if you're scum, PLEASE DO be that guy, because you'll be found out soon.
Let's see where this leads.
1) I'm never sure what time it is where Palmar is from because he seems to be around ALL the time sometimes. And he was JUST here, so I assumed he was going to wait on a response from me. I guess I was mistaken.
2) Foolishness scares me. :X He's way better than I am. I mean, Palmar's probably nominally better than me too, but he's not even in the same league as Foolishness.