Responsibility 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.

On December 20 2011 06:15 prplhz wrote:
Feel free to put in OP.

Ver's filter
ZBot's filter

1. Foolishness's filter
   
2. RebirthOfLeGenD's filter
   
3. wherebugsgo's filter
   
4. kitaman27's filter
   
5. syllogism's filter
   
6. SamuelLJackson's filter
   
7. Jackal58's filter
   
8. Liquid`Sheth's filter
   
9. GMarshal's filter
   
10. Meapak_Ziphh's filter
    
11. Mr. Wiggles's filter
    
12. Palmar's filter
    
13. Chezinu's filter
    
14. chaoser's filter
    
15. bumatlarge's filter
    
16. BloodyC0bbler's filter
    
17. LSB's filter
    
18. GGQ's filter
    
19. prplhz' filter
    
20. VisceraEyes's filter
    

RebirthOfLeGenD's filter works alright, it's just that he hasn't posted in this thread yet.

On December 20 2011 14:17 SamuelLJackson wrote:


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.

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.



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."

/Curu

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 10:19 Palmar wrote:


Best post in the thread yet.

On December 20 2011 15:30 L wrote:
Alright, straight off the bat people are saying that we need good posts.

No shit.

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.

On December 20 2011 18:59 L wrote:


Like what, exactly? Also, please don't post one liners. They inflate the thread size and make it tedious to read through content later.

RE: RNG

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.

RE: Me

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.

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 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

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?

On December 22 2011 06:19 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
##Vote: Chezinu
Working on finals stuff. Consider it a placeholder if you will.

On December 21 2011 10:28 LSB wrote:
Well that concludes that debacle

wherebugsgo: Greenish read. He sounds far to much like a tunneling townie than a calculated bus. Especially since he grasp at any straws to try to get his push through, rather than abandoning a hopeless case.

On December 22 2011 06:06 GMarshal wrote:
Alright, I've finally had time to read the thread.

Lets crack this bitch right open.



First of all, regarding the setup. Everyone who is speculating on it, I suggest you go take a gander at Personality Mafia, notice the preponderance of vigilantes over dts. I'm betting this game follows a similar theme in that respect.

I think this talk of triggers is preposterous, responsibility is based on actions not words, so expect things like weak medics or suicidal vigilantes, not "a DT that can only check people who have said potato". So stop worrying about "triggers" and such. This is at its basest still a game of mafia. Behave analytically, dont lie and don't derp, and everything will be ok. Bumatlarge's talk of responsibility points is an insane excuse to obfuscate his posting, and thus rather suspicious in and of itself. This is a closed setup, we know nothing, so stop talking or making assumptions based on the title. For all we know everyone is a VT or a time traveling Nordic Jahrl, don't speculate about the setup, since we are probably never going to have any concrete information regarding the setup. I'll say it again, play this as a normal setup. My major suggestion is to not claim, however under any circumstance. I suspect that there is a mafia role that can shoot based on claims, much like the sniper in Zona's Steamship game.

Don't adjust your behavior to deal with the setup, if the setup is well designed then playing normally will win us the game, and behaving like morons will end in our quick and unsubtle deaths. So, don't worry about it, and don't waste time discussing it.

(part two coming as soon as I'm done writing it)

On December 22 2011 06:55 GMarshal wrote:

Part 2: Picking and Choosing. Who to lynch day 1

Fuck it, I was half way through an analysis and realized it was utter shit. Let me just throw down my thoughts on a few players and I'll try to cook up something actually coherent. The major point is that the thread early on is actually painful to read with a bunch of nonsense being thrown around. Chez and bum yelling about triggers and hinting at roles, when really, there is no reason or call to do so. That said, I can see bum doing that as town, and Chez is freaking Chez, although in his defense, I can come up with a reason why town would claim traitor, in fact, I think anyone who has read the OP carefully can come up with a reason. If chez were not utterly insane and had been subtle about it I might have even given him town points for it.

LSB: Well, he hasn't come up with a mega plan yet, but I find wbg analysis against him to be quite weak. The fact is I expect better play from LSB overall. One point I didn't see brought up is that LSB seems to be lacking confidence, Town LSB is supremely confident, I don't get that "feel" here. his defense seems ok. I wanted to comment on him since he was a lynch target at some point.

SamuelLJackson - Hydra! Kill it with fire! Kill it with fire!. Ok, not seriously. What I find suspicious is that he endorsed a weak case against LSB. The fact that he can't come up with a reason why Chez might softclaim traitor as town is suspicious to me, especially because he says its anti town, and then doesn't do anything about it. Especially lolworthy is how he accuses me of making a stupid case when my "case" is "I dislike hydras, hurr durr", which was an attempt at gauging reactions. In fact I find the fact that he is so upset over it to be something worth noting

Kitaman- Hi Kita! Do you guys know whats funny about kitaman27 this game? That he is playing exactly to his scum meta and not actually contributing anything! Here is his filter

Read it, what is it about? Lurkers and Sheth, thats all kita seems to talk about. Yet he gets away as "not lurking" because of his 3-4 posts. Compare that to his play in Team Meele were he was active and pushing an agenda of lynching scum, and wham, you have a likely red.

Seriously, look at his posts, town kita often asks poignant questions and pushes his objectives, almost always taking stances, while scum kita likes to go for the "soft" lynches in lurkers and trolls while staying well away from the spotlight. Notice how he pushes Sheth, who no one is voting for, likely putting him on the "voting for someone not lynched train" Kita walks in in the middle of Palmar making a major accusation about me to yell about sheth, and then walks away, without taking a stance on it. In fact, reading through his posts, he fails to to take a real stance on anything. Of the players in the game, he is one that jumps out at me as extremely suspicious and worth scrutinizing.

Also, Palmar and L, stop yelling at each other, and remember, you have a higher chance of finding scum in the mid activity players, which is a category neither of you fulfills, but which kita does.

On December 22 2011 10:22 Liquid`Sheth wrote:
##Vote: LSB

I sped read through the posts. I have a general picture of things going on. I don't feel that we have a great case against LSB, but I'd rather lynch then not. I have feelings, but no hard evidence. I'm one of those guys who needs a bit extra time, and yes I'm being apologetic about it. Sorry I didn't have the proper amount of attention to spend on this today. I will only get better, I doubt its possible to get worse then I've posted today. Unless I was Chezinu...

On December 22 2011 11:49 Jackal58 wrote:

Scum received a list of blue roles.

On December 22 2011 11:51 GMarshal wrote:

I came back to see if I died.

I'm feeling stupid and lazy, but something this basic is something I know.

On December 22 2011 12:00 LSB wrote:

Scumslip? I think yes

On December 22 2011 12:11 LSB wrote:

Yeah? And why not prefer my plan and have us both shoot someone? It's even better for the town.

On December 22 2011 12:13 Liquid`Sheth wrote:
I'd say leave them both alive, and only let them shoot each other. Clearly the one who really was vigilante prevails. Or if there both vigilante they both die. o.o; This seems like a solid idea to me. And we could use our lynch today on someone else.

On December 23 2011 02:42 kitaman27 wrote:


If GM were the traitor, the scum team would still need to shoot a scum to justify him living. I don't think the trade would be worth it, considering GM would then have to deal with having a reason for being alive for the remainder of the game for shooting scum. It looked like LSB was going to be lynched even before the counter-claim, so its not like traitor would have anything to gain by putting himself out there to be responsible for a vig shot tonight.

On December 23 2011 04:08 kitaman27 wrote:


The most common formula is #scum/2, rounded up, so it could go up to 3 if the traitor is recruited, but that is of little help if the traitor gets lynched the next day. The one additional kp for one night doesn't seem worth outing the traitor as scum.

On December 23 2011 05:42 kitaman27 wrote:


It would depend what happens. If GM decided not to fire, I would be willing. If he claims to have hit player X and player X survives the hit, then I would probably want to lynch one of the two, unless there was a legitimate reason not to. I'm not sure how we would approach the situation if he is roleblocked. It would probably depend on who he decides to hit and his reasoning. How about you?

@GM, is your bullet refunded if you are roleblocked?

On December 23 2011 08:33 prplhz wrote:
Hey guys I decided to write something about BloodyC0bbler because he only has 3 posts in this game so that should be easy, AMIRITE?

BloodyC0bbler
His first post isn't very impressive.

His second post has already been commented on. It appears to me that he is soft blue claiming in the very first paragraph, by saying that bumatlarge and Chezinu are making sense when they're talking about the setup (which I think they were?). He says it in a way that would make people think that he knows something about the setup too, but not in a very subtle way like he wants everybody to know. This looks like a soft blue claim to me but I have no idea why he is doing it at this point.

Also in the first paragraph he says "Their posts illustrate what I am saying.", well dude, you haven't said a thing yet. That is your 7th sentence in this game. The rest of your post doesn't say anything that looks like it is remotely related to what bumatlarge and Chezinu might have been talking about, so this makes little sense to me.

His next paragraphs says "everybody sucks, RNG sucks" which has already been commented on by other people, we were beyond talking about RNG at this point, why didn't he just move on if he doesn't want people to talk about RNG?

He finishes his post by making a half assed accusation against Palmar for not contributing any original content. Pot kettle black.

His third and latest post to date starts by pointing out something that Foolishness already pointed out.

He then defends GMarshal for suggesting a policy lynch saying that "hydras ruin games" and "lets kill the hydra because he's a hydra" isn't terrible. This is odd to me because it is a terrible accusation that GMarshal came up with there, just because Protactinium or whatever ruined a game 100 years ago doesn't mean that policy lynching a hydra now is a good idea. It's like he's grasping for straws to defend GMarshal, I don't understand why because the case against GMarshal was decent and the pressure was not misplaced at all.

Next paragraph he again goes for Palmar because Palmar pointed out that BloodyC0bbler was addressing something that wasn't relevant to the thread anyway, and by doing this BloodyC0bbler again talks about something that is not relevant to the thread anymore. We are past RNG here, talk about it post game, there was no need to comment and just because Palmar was apparently stupid in thinking that RNG is alright, BloodyC0bbler isn't adding anything to the thread here.

It is statements like "Now, I only respond to these posts as he was tossing shit my way for my play.", he feel the need to justify that he's defending himself, dude why don't you just play better and put effort into something that isn't defending yourself? Then nobody will be on your back.

In the end he concludes that Palmar is likely town. Then why the hell these first paragraphs? You are going for Palmar for over half of your post and then you say "Yea he's probably town because of that thing Foolishness said". Again, you are not adding anything to this thread, you are only trying to take stuff out of it.

Only in the last two paragraphs does he actually do something that isn't counter attacking Palmar for his very accurate comment on BloodyC0bbler's posting. This is alright, and it's a very early committal vote on LSB who was acting weird, the only problem I have is that BloodyC0bbler says "So until he comes out with anything substantial to keep him alive im voting him.", but BloodyC0bbler never returns to the thread. It's like he's placed his vote and then he doesn't really care anymore. If he had been in the thread at any point I believe he would have commented on the whole claim and counter claim thing, that seems like something that might have shaken his belief in this lynch but he doesn't, he just disappears from the thread once he's placed his vote.

Overall I also think BloodyC0bbler seems excessively hostile, throwing words like "shit" and "shite" and "asshattery" (which of course is also kinda funny) all over the place. I don't get this weird frustrated hostility, but I feel like it's the same I saw in Curu in Election mafia. I don't know how to interpret this and it's all up for discussion, but maybe BloodyC0bbler doesn't really like being scum, he wasn't like this at all in XLVII.

I can't vote right now.

Since VisceraEyes is around maybe you can comment on this? Foolishness is around too but I doubt I'll get anything out of him right now.

On December 23 2011 09:22 Jackal58 wrote:

So who is replacing L?

On December 23 2011 12:44 Foolishness wrote:
What are you guys even debating about x.x

On December 23 2011 12:47 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


Do you have a reason to be such a raving dick?

Everyone has reasons both in game and outside of game that dictate their level of activeness in a game. Currently as it stands I have been insanely busy with work, xmas related shite, family stuff. If you noticed ver made a post about the level of some players was going to be lower than others? Guess what, I was one of those.

Before you instantly start jumping on a vet for being "inactive" or "he has done nothing helpful" why don't you take something a host has mentioned and leave the "inactives" alone and go after the people who are being active. Until day 2 arrives you had no real idea of who was in the net of players who were going to be less active for day 1. However you still chose to jump up and down at me as well as other players.


Now who wants to see the interesting bit? Check out Palmars Filter.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=295384&user=87086

Who has he analyzed?

For a player like Palmar for a day 1 with all the posting has down. He didn't analyze a single player. He FoS or argues with a ton of people, never builds a case then promptly jumps on the lsb wagon. (which I am guilty of voting for the same person, and as much as I'd like to say I'd swap my vote I wasn't here to).

This game of yours palmar is nothing like your play from the last game we played together where you were town. You were actively pushing against some people and at least had analysis then, here you have nothing but generalities with no real solid contributions of your own.